Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-13 Thread Johannes Schindelin
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

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-13 Thread Michael J Gruber
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

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-12 Thread Johannes Schindelin
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

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-11 Thread Ramsay Jones
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. >

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-11 Thread Jeff King
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 && "$@") > } >

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-11 Thread Adam Dinwoodie
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. >

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-10 Thread Ramsay Jones
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

Re: Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-10 Thread Michael J Gruber
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

Unexpected pass for t6120-describe.sh on cygwin

2017-09-09 Thread Ramsay Jones
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'