-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
ci: aarch64-gnu: Stop skipping panic_abort_doc_tests
#142886
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
Open
Enselic
wants to merge
1
commit into
rust-lang:master
Choose a base branch
from
Enselic:aarch64-panic
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
+1
−2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The skipped test passes since nightly-2024-11-29. Let's stop skipping it to increase the chance of detecing a regression.
This was referenced Jun 23, 2025
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2025
…try> tests: Require `run-fail` ui tests to have an exit code (`SIGABRT` not ok) Normally a `run-fail` ui test shall not be terminated by a signal like `SIGABRT`. So begin having that as a hard requirement. Some of our current tests do terminate by a signal however. Introduce and use `run-fail-without-exit-code` for those tests. This adds further (cc #142304, #142886) protection against the regression in #123733 since that bug also manifested as `SIGABRT` in `tests/ui/panics/panic-main.rs` (shown as `Aborted (core dumped)` in the logs attached to that issue, and I have also been able to reproduce this locally). ### TODO - [ ] what about on Windows? - [ ] also update docs at https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/directives.html#controlling-outcome-expectations - [ ] clean up the code ### Zulip discussion See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/122651-general/topic/compiletest.3A.20terminate.20by.20signal.20vs.20exit.20with.20error/with/525611235 try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2025
…try> tests: Require `run-fail` ui tests to have an exit code (`SIGABRT` not ok) Normally a `run-fail` ui test shall not be terminated by a signal like `SIGABRT`. So begin having that as a hard requirement. Some of our current tests do terminate by a signal however. Introduce and use `run-fail-without-exit-code` for those tests. This adds further (cc #142304, #142886) protection against the regression in #123733 since that bug also manifested as `SIGABRT` in `tests/ui/panics/panic-main.rs` (shown as `Aborted (core dumped)` in the logs attached to that issue, and I have also been able to reproduce this locally). ### TODO - [ ] **Q:** what about on Windows? **A:** we'll treat any exit code outside of 1 - 127 as "crashed", and we'll do the same on unix. - [ ] also update docs at https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/directives.html#controlling-outcome-expectations - [ ] clean up the code - [ ] test all permutations of actual vs expected ### Zulip discussion See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/122651-general/topic/compiletest.3A.20terminate.20by.20signal.20vs.20exit.20with.20error/with/525611235 try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2025
…try> tests: Require `run-fail` ui tests to have an exit code (`SIGABRT` not ok) Normally a `run-fail` ui test shall not be terminated by a signal like `SIGABRT`. So begin having that as a hard requirement. Some of our current tests do terminate by a signal however. Introduce and use `run-fail-without-exit-code` for those tests. This adds further (cc #142304, #142886) protection against the regression in #123733 since that bug also manifested as `SIGABRT` in `tests/ui/panics/panic-main.rs` (shown as `Aborted (core dumped)` in the logs attached to that issue, and I have also been able to reproduce this locally). ### TODO - [ ] **Q:** what about on Windows? **A:** we'll treat any exit code outside of 1 - 127 as "crashed", and we'll do the same on unix. - [x] test all permutations of actual vs expected **Done:** See #143002 (comment). ### Zulip discussion See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/122651-general/topic/compiletest.3A.20terminate.20by.20signal.20vs.20exit.20with.20error/with/525611235 try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite
Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
T-infra
Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The skipped test passes since
nightly-2024-11-29
. See #123733 (comment) and #123733 (comment) for more info.Let's stop skipping it to increase the chance of detecting a regression.
r? @cuviper who added the skip in #123828
Also see #142304 for an alternative regression test that I am hoping to also land in the near future to complement the test we now stop skipping, but I need to investigate that setup more.