On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 19:52, Michael <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> wrote: > > On 17/09/2018 09:39, Michael wrote: > > I read the discussion related to issue32374. That seems to be sure that > > other events that could > > cause the test to fail (i.e., the program executes successfully) are > > caught early, and/or ignored > > so that the program fails - and the test succeeds. > > After reading below, I would appreciate knowing whether to ask that > issue32374 be reopened and the test adjusted so that the test is > "SkipIf" AIX? Or, something else? I'll work on something else, but I do > not want to guess the current intent of this test module.
Reviewing https://bugs.python.org/issue32374, the purpose of the test case is to check that failing to handle the m_state == NULL case will always segfault (because the import machinery always checks that m_traverse is valid after the create stage), rather than only segfaulting sometimes (based on whether or not a cyclic gc run triggers at an inopportune moment). Since the AIX case won't segfault in either the deliberately triggered traversal *or* in a GC-induced traversal, skipping the test case on AIX seems fine (with the note that null pointer accesses are just zero on AIX, not a segfault). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
