From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47AF1F462 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:45:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726343AbfG3TpQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:45:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55762 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1725911AbfG3TpQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:45:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 7333 invoked by uid 109); 30 Jul 2019 19:45:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:45:16 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 10105 invoked by uid 111); 30 Jul 2019 19:46:58 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:46:58 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:45:15 -0400 From: Jeff King To: "Randall S. Becker" Cc: 'Junio C Hamano' , git@vger.kernel.org, git-packagers@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.23.0-rc0 - Initial test failures on NonStop Message-ID: <20190730194515.GA1088@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <049a01d546f9$70be7a30$523b6e90$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <049a01d546f9$70be7a30$523b6e90$@nexbridge.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:08:37PM -0400, Randall S. Becker wrote: > t0016: oidmap > > Subtest 6 had an ordering issue. We do not know whether the problem is the code or the test result not keeping up with the code changes. > --- expect 2019-07-30 16:56:36 +0000 > +++ actual 2019-07-30 16:56:36 +0000 > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > NULL > NULL > NULL > +7c7cd714e262561f73f3079dfca4e8724682ac21 3 > 139b20d8e6c5b496de61f033f642d0e3dbff528d 2 > d79ce1670bdcb76e6d1da2ae095e890ccb326ae9 1 > -7c7cd714e262561f73f3079dfca4e8724682ac21 3 This one is very curious. It's iterating a hash, which _seems_ like it would produce non-deterministic output. But neither this test nor the hashmap test it is based on sorts the output, and they pass consistently for me. I assume that's because while hash ordering is not guaranteed, it happens to be the same as long the pattern of inserts is the same (with our implementation, which does not do any hash randomization). But I am scratching my head as to what could be different on your platform that would cause a different ordering (especially when the hashmap test this is based on doesn't get one!). I guess in some sense it may not be worth tracking down, and we should just sort the output of a hash iteration unconditionally when comparing it to expected output. -Peff