fragile tests

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

fragile tests

Richard Eisenberg-5
Hi devs,

I believe threadstatus-9333 is more fragile than it's listed as. See https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163182, where I haven't been anywhere near this area of the code...

Also, on a separate test, I found that compact_gc got killed. See https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163526.

Should these be fragile?

Thanks,
Richard

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fragile tests

Ben Gamari-3
Richard Eisenberg <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi devs,
>
> I believe threadstatus-9333 is more fragile than it's listed as. See
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163182
> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163182>, where I haven't
> been anywhere near this area of the code...
>
Yes, you are correct; I fixed this earlier this week in !1789.

> Also, on a separate test, I found that compact_gc got killed. See
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163526
> <https://gitlab.haskell.org/rae/ghc/-/jobs/163526>.
>
Hmm, it looks like it timed out in the ghci way. I would guess that the
interpreter is simply too slow. Looking back at the test tracking
database it seems this failure has only occurred twice since we started
tracking.

I have opened #17253 to track this and will mark the way as fragile.

Cheers,

- Ben


_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment