Skip to content

Revert "[Diag] Create frontend flags for localization and write tests #32615

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 30, 2020

Conversation

davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor

This reverts commit 621b3b4 (#32568).

The driver is double faulting on my Linux box (Fedora 32 / x86-64). It crashes due to heap corruption, then hangs trying to introspect and print the stack. There also appears to be an unrelated(?) uninitialized memory error that valgrind detects (as opposed to malloc's own self diagnostics).

CC: @HassanElDesouky

…swiftlang#32568)"

This reverts commit 621b3b4.

The driver is double faulting on my Linux box (Fedora 32 / x86-64). It
crashes due to heap corruption, then hangs trying to introspect and
print the stack. There also appears to be an unrelated(?) uninitialized
memory error that valgrind detects (as opposed to malloc's own self
diagnostics).
@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci please smoke test and merge

@HassanElDesouky
Copy link
Contributor

I’m sorry for the crash. However, I can’t really understand what’s going on. Is there a particular part of my code that’s causing the issue?

@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not a problem. These things happen.

I haven't debugged it further. The test reliably crashes/hangs after #32568 and the crash/hang goes away after I revert #32568. It also seems specific to the driver and Valgrind is reporting a genuine bug in the driver, so I'd at least investigate and fix that first.

When you have a new pull request ready, please let me know and I can retest on my Linux box.

@HassanElDesouky
Copy link
Contributor

Okay. I’ll need to check with @xedin on what should be done now.

I’ll also mention you in the upcoming PR.

@swift-ci swift-ci merged commit 4f27eee into swiftlang:master Jun 30, 2020
@davezarzycki davezarzycki deleted the pr32615 branch June 30, 2020 14:58
@xedin
Copy link
Contributor

xedin commented Jun 30, 2020

@davezarzycki Why are we reverting whole PR if there is a problem in a single test?

@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

  1. The test was added in the PR and seemed core to the goals the PR.
  2. Removing the test or hiding the bug by invoking the front end directly would have just buried the bug that was introduced/exposed by the PR.

@xedin
Copy link
Contributor

xedin commented Jun 30, 2020

@davezarzycki We could have XFAIL'ed a test and gave developer a moment to figure out what is going on and how to reproduce, we have ran a whole suite and nothing failed so it shouldn't be blocking anybody from their work.

@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

davezarzycki commented Jun 30, 2020

@davezarzycki We could have XFAIL'ed a test and gave developer a moment to figure out what is going on and how to reproduce, we have ran a whole suite and nothing failed so it shouldn't be blocking anybody from their work.

What would we XFAIL? Linux? Clearly it passes on Ubuntu. Can we XFAIL just Fedora? If so, that's news to me. It's also news to me that this would have been the appropriate resolution. I thought we had an LLVM culture when it came to broken commits and reverting them, especially if the broken commit is recently committed. Is our revert/XFAIL culture documented somewhere?

I'm also not sure that I'd agree that this "shouldn't be blocking anybody from their work." This test is failing and causing my downstream auto-merger / CI some amount of indigestion. It's also breaking my workflow because I have to remove the test before running the test suite, otherwise it hangs for a long time until the test suite times out.

@xedin
Copy link
Contributor

xedin commented Jun 30, 2020

@davezarzycki Yes, we could have XFAIL'ed whole test via // REQUIRES: just like we always do. I'm not sure exactly what is documented but as far as I understand the agreements (/cc @shahmishal) we only revert like that if CI is broken and by "anybody" here I mean anybody contributing to the Swift repository, that's why previous commit, which failed on Windows, got reverted, because there was a clear indication what is going on.

@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

davezarzycki commented Jun 30, 2020

@davezarzycki Yes, we could have XFAIL'ed whole test via // REQUIRES: just like we always do. I'm not sure exactly what is documented but as far as I understand the agreements (/cc @shahmishal) we only revert like that if CI is broken and by "anybody" here I mean anybody contributing to the Swift repository, that's why previous commit, which failed on Windows, got reverted, because there was a clear indication what is going on.

Okay. I’ll try to remember to revert only if CI is broken. In any case, as I told @HassanElDesouky earlier, I’m happy to help test a fix when it’s ready. I suspect that the PR’s driver changes just need to be run through some sanitizer like tools to find the bug.

@shahmishal
Copy link
Member

Can we re-revert this change and mark the test // REQUIRES: SR-XXXX to disable this test on all platforms until it's fixed on Fedora? Also, we should file a bug report on bugs.swift.org.

@xedin
Copy link
Contributor

xedin commented Jun 30, 2020

@HassanElDesouky Is currently working on un-revert and changes, we'll see how it goes.

@davezarzycki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks. Due to the pandemic, I can only work ~6a to noon eastern time (then I watch my son), so I can’t undo the revert until tomorrow

@shahmishal
Copy link
Member

shahmishal commented Jun 30, 2020

No worries, thanks for helping with this @davezarzycki!

@HassanElDesouky / @xedin Thanks for un-reverting!

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.

5 participants