Skip to content

Unignore tests in stage1 - #25338

Merged
bors merged 2 commits into
rust-lang:masterfrom
tamird:unignore-stage-tests
May 14, 2015
Merged

Unignore tests in stage1#25338
bors merged 2 commits into
rust-lang:masterfrom
tamird:unignore-stage-tests

Conversation

@tamird

@tamird tamird commented May 12, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We don't have any pending snapshot-requiring changes.

Works toward #3965.

@rust-highfive

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

r? @alexcrichton

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@tamird
tamird force-pushed the unignore-stage-tests branch from db662d2 to c032e81 Compare May 12, 2015 16:53
@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Just to confirm, have you run all these tests in stage1? Plugins fundamentally don't work in stage1, so many of these I believe are intentional.

@tamird

tamird commented May 12, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I haven't, but I'll do that now!

@tamird

tamird commented May 12, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hm. make check-stage1 passed locally.

@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Ah right, it is possible for these tests to work at stage1 (if codegen is similar enough in stage0 and stage1), but it's not guaranteed. For example if codegen changes after stage0 then plugins will be broken.

@tamird

tamird commented May 13, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

So: wat do?

@tamird

tamird commented May 13, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

wat do

@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think that this should back out the removal of // ignore-stage from all *-fulldeps tests, but all changes to src/test/{auxiliary,run-pass} look good to me!

@tamird

tamird commented May 13, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I think it's probably OK to unignore compilefail-fulldeps; do you agree?

@tamird
tamird force-pushed the unignore-stage-tests branch from 85982d2 to 80266b7 Compare May 13, 2015 12:03
@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think it kinda depends on the test. Anything which expects #![plugin] to succeed (e.g. have the dlopen be a success) must be ignored in stage1, but some of these tests are expecting a compiler error before we hit that point so they can be un-ignored yeah.

@tamird

tamird commented May 13, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@alexcrichton is there a change I can make locally to induce the condition that would break these tests in stage1? feels a bit like a guessing game otherwise.

@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think if you change the symbol hashing function it'll cause the symbols to be totally different at stage1 than they were at stage0, so you can try just adding symbol_hasher.input_str("foo") somewhere in there perhaps? I haven't exactly tested out this theory though, so it also may not work :(

tamird added 2 commits May 13, 2015 15:55
We don't have any pending snapshot-requiring changes. Tests which
continue to be ignored are those that are broken by codegen changes.
@tamird
tamird force-pushed the unignore-stage-tests branch from 80266b7 to f548a05 Compare May 14, 2015 02:14
@tamird

tamird commented May 14, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Your suggestion worked! I tested these locally and they passed (with the hashing change) so this should be good to merge. Thanks for your help @alexcrichton.

@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@bors: r+ f548a05

Nice! Thanks!

@alexcrichton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@bors: rollup

@bors

bors commented May 14, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Testing commit f548a05 with merge b1bd3a3...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 14, 2015
We don't have any pending snapshot-requiring changes. Closes #20184.

Works toward #3965.
@bors

bors commented May 14, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@bors
bors merged commit f548a05 into rust-lang:master May 14, 2015
@tamird
tamird deleted the unignore-stage-tests branch May 14, 2015 10:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants