From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C23208CD for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932218AbdIGOya (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:54:30 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:59770 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755421AbdIGOyZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:54:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 945 invoked by uid 109); 7 Sep 2017 14:54:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:54:25 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 502 invoked by uid 111); 7 Sep 2017 14:54:58 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:54:58 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:54:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:54:23 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Michael J Gruber Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Test name-rev with small stack Message-ID: <20170907145423.wz3iqxxz2yvxq5lm@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:02:19PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > name-rev segfaults for me in emacs.git with the typical 8102 stack size. > The reason is the recursive walk that name-rev uses. > > This series adds a test to mark this as known failure, after some > clean-ups. These all look reasonable to me. The size of the test case in the final one is presumably arbitrary and just copied from t7004. I don't know if it's worth trying to shrink it. It could shorten a rather expensive test. OTOH, if we shorten it too much then we might get a false pass (e.g., if the algorithm remains recursive but has a smaller stack footprint). > Michael J Gruber (4): > t7004: move limited stack prereq to test-lib > t6120: test name-rev --all and --stdin > t6120: clean up state after breaking repo > t6120: test describe and name-rev with deep repos Now comes the hard part: rewriting the C code. :) -Peff