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

Eugene Loh
2024-10-29T21:13:59Z

On 10/29/24 11:05, Kris Van Hees wrote:

> If memory serves me well,

It does.

> 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.

v2 will have the slightly different name
"test: Clean up zero-size speculation + chill()".

> 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
>>>>