Re: [PATCH 26/38] test: Annotate xfail (chill not implemented yet)

Kris Van Hees
2024-10-29T15:06:00Z

If memory serves me well, I think the plan was to change this test to not use
chill at all (and remove the xfail), and introduce a new test that exercises
the use of chill in the context of a clause that is a zero-size speculation.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 07:38:33PM -0400, Eugene Loh wrote:
> On 7/19/24 17:12, Kris Van Hees wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:38:52AM -0400, eugene.loh@oracle.com wrote:
> > > From: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> > Before I can really assess whether the annotation is valid,
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure the annotation is right.
>
> > I'd like to know
> > why chill) is even used here. I.e. I don't quite understand the test :)
>
> Well, I'm all with you on that.  I'm pretty sure the chill() is pretty
> irrelevant and that the test is "valid" and passes without it.  I am of two
> minds:
>
> 1)  Remove the chill() and @@xfail and move on.
>
> 2)  Be grateful for idiosyncrasies in the test suite, since they often turn
> up bugs.  Weird tests turn up weird bugs.
>
> The patch was going with #2;  that get my vote.  I'm okay with #1, however.
> Feel free to decide.
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > > test/unittest/speculation/tst.zerosize.d | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/test/unittest/speculation/tst.zerosize.d b/test/unittest/speculation/tst.zerosize.d
> > > index 56c1fcea..996f1257 100644
> > > --- a/test/unittest/speculation/tst.zerosize.d
> > > +++ b/test/unittest/speculation/tst.zerosize.d
> > > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> > > * http://oss.oracle.com/licenses/upl.
> > > */
> > > -/* @@xfail: dtv2 */
> > > +/* @@xfail: dtv2, chill not implemented yet */
> > > #pragma D option destructive
> > > --
> > > 2.18.4
> > >