9.2 should be easy, as we already did that for DTS.
There may be a 9.3 soon, but there's no firm schedule on that.

9.3.0 is out now -- is that what we want here?  (I'd think so...)

Running dyninst testsuite from dyninst-9.3.1-1.el7 and there are 52 failures. Is that OK?

Failing tests (x86_64):

amd64_7_arg_call, init_fini_callback, test1_12, test1_14, test1_19, test1_29, test1_40, test1_41, test2_14, test2_6, test2_8, test3_1, test3_2, test3_3, test3_4, test3_5, test3_7, test4_1, test4_2, test4_3, test4_4, test_callback_1, test_callback_2, test_fork_10, test_fork_11, test_fork_12, test_fork_13, test_fork_14, test_fork_5, test_fork_6, test_fork_7, test_fork_8, test_fork_9, test_mem_1, test_mem_2, test_mem_3, test_mem_4, test_mem_5, test_mem_6, test_mem_7, test_mem_8, test_snip_remove, test_stack_1, test_stack_2, test_stack_3, test_stack_4, test_thread_1, test_thread_2, test_thread_3, test_thread_6, test_thread_7, test_thread_8

Should I provide more details?

Thanks.

Hi Stan! I don't want to bother you too much with these failures, since it's pretty possible that they are not important for systemtap dyninst-based functionality. However, since the testsuite used to PASS in the 8.x versions, I cannot waive all these fails without an expert's approval... :-)

Martin Cermak says that the systemtap dyninst-related testing passes.

Should I ignore the testsuite failures or would you like to have a deeper look at them?

Thanks!

> Martin Cermak says that the systemtap dyninst-related testing passes.
> 
> Should I ignore the testsuite failures or would you like to have a deeper
> look at them?


Yes that sounds reasonable.  If dyninst only functionality runs into these problems then dts 7.0 is being rebased with dyninst 9.3.2 which fixes these failures.

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:2099