Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Test and fix gdb pretty printing more - #70282
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Mar 22, 2020
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 |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Mar 26, 2020
@bors r+ Thanks! |
bors
commented
Mar 26, 2020
📌 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
Dylan-DPC-zz
commented
Mar 26, 2020
failed in rollup |
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)" |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Mar 27, 2020
@bors r+ rollup=never just in case |
bors
commented
Mar 27, 2020
📌 Commit 3d435d8 has been approved by |
Dylan-DPC-zz
commented
Mar 27, 2020
@bors p=1 |
bors
commented
Mar 27, 2020
ssomers
commented
Mar 27, 2020
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: |
bors
commented
Mar 27, 2020
☀️ 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