On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:45:02PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Typically, on Linux the test passes. On Windows, it fails virtually
> > every time due to an access violation (that's a segmentation fault for
> > you Unix-y people out there). And Windows would be correct: the
> > regexec() call wants to operate on a regular, NUL-terminated string,
> > there is no NUL in the mmap()ed memory range, and it is undefined
> > whether the next byte is even legal to access.
> > When run with --valgrind it demonstrates quite clearly the breakage, of
> > course.
> > So we simply mark it with `test_expect_success` for now.
> I'd prefer if this were marked as expect_failure. It fails reliably for
> me on Linux, even without --valgrind. But even if that were not so,
> there is no reason to hurt bisectability of somebody running with
> "--valgrind" (not when it costs so little to mark it correctly).
Forgot to say in the cover letter: I did change this from
test_expect_success to test_expect_failure.
But of course, now I remember that I failed to change it back in 3/3. Bah.