-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Test and fix gdb pretty printing more #70282
Conversation
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
8fab3e3
to
44556ae
Compare
@bors r+ Thanks! |
📌 Commit 44556ae has been approved by |
…r=Mark-Simulacrum Test and fix gdb pretty printing more Over time I had oversimplified the test case for rust-lang#68098: it does not have an internal node to print so it does not test what it pretend to test. And then I also realized not spotting the same mistake reviewing rust-lang#70111, and more likely to occur in the wild. Now, both test cases fail if you put back the flawed python code. r? @Mark-Simulacrum
failed in rollup |
44556ae
to
3d435d8
Compare
Output is different (values are merely `core::option::Option<bool>`) on the
rollup machine with image version '20200315.1' and GNU gdb (Ubuntu
8.1-0ubuntu3.2) 8.1.0.20180409-git, exactly the same as the PR machine that
blessed the test case.
So made the check even more forgiving.
PS the actual difference is probably the last word in "Check compiletest suite=debuginfo mode=debuginfo (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-musl)"
|
@bors r+ rollup=never just in case |
📌 Commit 3d435d8 has been approved by |
@bors p=1 |
The type is printed up front, equals-sign and value after that. To ensure there was no python exception while rendering the value, regardless of the output, the minimal check is:
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Over time I had oversimplified the test case for #68098: it did not have an internal node to print so it did not test what it pretended to test. And then I also realized not spotting the same mistake reviewing #70111, and more likely to occur in the wild. Now, both test cases fail if you put back the flawed python code.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum