Hi Michael,
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Could you please try and report on the following (cygwin, MinGW):
>
> ulimit -s
> ulimit -s 4096 # anything lower than the value from above
> ulimit -s
> bash -c "ulimit -s"
Git Bash (MINGW, well, not precisely [*1*]):
me@work
Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 12.09.2017 15:39:
> Hi Ramsay,
>
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>> I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because that
>> was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS, but t6120
>> was showing a 'TODO
Hi Ramsay,
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because that
> was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS, but t6120
> was showing a 'TODO passed' for #52.
>
> This is a test introduced by Michael's
On 11/09/17 11:31, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 02:13:32PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because
>> that was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS,
>> but t6120 was showing a 'TODO passed' for #52.
>
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 02:27:47PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> This apparantly expects "ulimit -s" to fail on platforms that don't
> support it, so set the prereq accordingly. I moved the following to
> t/test-lib.sh:
>
> run_with_limited_stack () {
> (ulimit -s 128 && "$@")
> }
>
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 02:13:32PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because
> that was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS,
> but t6120 was showing a 'TODO passed' for #52.
Confirmed, I also see this unexpected pass.
>
On 10/09/17 13:27, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Ramsay Jones venit, vidit, dixit 09.09.2017 15:13:
[snip]
>> So, it looks like all ULIMIT_STACK_SIZE tests need to be disabled
>> on cygwin. I also wonder about the ULIMIT_FILE_DESCRIPTORS tests,
>> but haven't looked into it.
>>
>> Given that
Ramsay Jones venit, vidit, dixit 09.09.2017 15:13:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because
> that was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS,
> but t6120 was showing a 'TODO passed' for #52.
>
> This is a test introduced by Michael's
Hi Adam,
I ran the test-suite on the 'pu' branch last night (simply because
that was what I had built at the time!), which resulted in a PASS,
but t6120 was showing a 'TODO passed' for #52.
This is a test introduced by Michael's 'mg/name-rev-tests-with-short-stack'
branch, which uses 'ulimit -s'
9 matches
Mail list logo