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

Eugene Loh
2024-07-19T23:38:41Z

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
>>