r177997 - Actually mark ASan-unfriendly test as XFAIL

[Alexey Samsonov]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Richard Smith <metafoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon Jan 27 2014 at 5:39:25 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. We need the inverse of "REQUIRES" keyword. For example, we
>> can have smth. like
>> // UNSUPPORTED: asan
>> that would tell lit to ignore this test if "asan" is in
>> config.available_features.
>>
>> I'm not aware of such a feature in lit. Daniel, do you think it's worth
>> implementing it?
>>
>
> We could add a "not_asan" feature and use "REQUIRES: not_asan"
>

Alright, for now I've added "not_asan" feature and fixed the test in
r200291.


> (or maybe add support to lit for negative requirements), or perhaps for
> this test we should "REQUIRES: stack" and provide "stack" unless we know
> we're in a stack-space-constrained environment?
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:24 PM, dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue Mar 26 2013 at 1:48:29 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Author: samsonov
>> Date: Tue Mar 26 03:45:29 2013
>> New Revision: 177997
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=177997&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Actually mark ASan-unfriendly test as XFAIL
>>
>> Modified:
>>     cfe/trunk/test/Index/annotate-deep-statements.cpp
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Index/annotate-deep-statements.cpp
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Index/
>> annotate-deep-statements.cpp?rev=177997&r1=177996&r2=177997&view=diff
>> ============================================================
>> ==================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Index/annotate-deep-statements.cpp (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Index/annotate-deep-statements.cpp Tue Mar 26
>> 03:45:29 2013
>> @@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
>>  // rdar://11979525
>>  // Check that we don't get stack overflow trying to annotate an
>> extremely deep AST.
>>
>> +// AddressSanitizer increases stack usage.
>> +// XFAIL: asan
>>
>>
>> This test is XPASSing for me under ASan. I assume it's because my machine
>> happens to have a higher stack limit. Is there anything we can do to make
>> this more reliable?
>>
>>
>> +
>>  struct S {
>>    S &operator()();
>>  };
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Samsonov, MSK
>>
>


-- 
Alexey Samsonov, MSK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140128/b0e69581/attachment.html>