From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775A41F698 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=aeX0v/m0; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229563AbiLYOqE (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2022 09:46:04 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60270 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229540AbiLYOqC (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2022 09:46:02 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1F7276 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2022 06:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id s196so6000257pgs.3 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2022 06:46:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=HaKJ4Xl9irUZ9UbWKOy3XqCdOfoGut0YVMLH1Gva4qY=; b=aeX0v/m0ZI/8aaNi7vysIQnuauntc2u43UNjywi+V9Q0AySYhrdyNEPvyeRN2PHbdh TnZ3v5nHrfvW4QZYRMlCz5zgAC9/OvFJB4z+gYlOFNu6QCCXxRftoaSoKXmjldqtesQD 8sl2srq7xyQVr9Xh+gej/BgpEiX1NNXxdyOc6vz2z/nkMka/r6+Mj6GY/h5dUT9kVAOB jGlBuBO5DtOrLPR1QpI3kHvo/mNUzdaZ2UxwCEfBqNkusWUmp9WAON2Kb300WVYFgd4o XzBpbAyQRFaRjVhvyiNVWruK/nle9pPqX4ZflQueM2O4tE3/1gXuyNRB8mmI/9i4Slv5 GEVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HaKJ4Xl9irUZ9UbWKOy3XqCdOfoGut0YVMLH1Gva4qY=; b=0MQMplFjz7zs0WiGM1rngcbCXdjx9hmvGj+aeKH//DZmRKYc/AAa5bZyTdnLA2YVXg hk6sO3NvyRhM6HVzwWcEXgV/YiJZFZOJbAhfwgiB+DaSmblJPLRkp6/96qsBftpWMuAG +lkODv6i0aN0D4GP+fsL8a8RwiGw4VuvzD/AejARJlk5fQEEGpWy05wOzEOwQaxcjoBP G/265+apsQXDYLO0SmNoymgEjIey50guuSHvBTAZIV9GVCYfTPCuq1v2IS3T+d77sQwO X5R6vx54ovBTkEHHMoTFQmBiiMDGsjc/20DR52ZxCY2yLWbIvFTLBpEBjXT1fmtO+Sme ymQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpD8s+WDKIXmgMWLImB6QuW2k9xIsov7exDC+Umt1aq1p+byl6L +Y1g/xmIm1bWkpnisW70oZ8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXviNg3KSCiBNQXmE+FOFMkHzVWWGgDfhaLZECHTuW+KP/9QrrubNUmiTHXRFQIg0W9gJ54yxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:f8d:b0:577:501c:c154 with SMTP id ct13-20020a056a000f8d00b00577501cc154mr32130108pfb.6.1671979560760; Sun, 25 Dec 2022 06:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x8-20020aa79ac8000000b005736209dc01sm5395675pfp.47.2022.12.25.06.45.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 25 Dec 2022 06:45:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: Johannes Sixt , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: js/drop-mingw-test-cmp, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2022, #03; Sun, 11) References: <3c55ac67-5090-b7af-a212-2996bad66fb2@kdbg.org> <2090204b-52e9-a22f-f0c9-f812d1231863@web.de> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2022 23:45:59 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org René Scharfe writes: >> Things did not turn out to be as simple. After ripping out all >> special-casing of GIT_TEST_CMP from a MinGW build, I notice at least one >> case that needs special treatment (it's `tar tf` that writes CRLF >> output). > > That would affect t6132 and perhaps t9502, right? > > How can I reproduce it? I get only LF: > ... > NATIVE_CRLF seems intended to track the macro of the same name, so it > probably makes sense to mirror config.mak.uname, but a test helper (or > "git version --build-options" line) that returns the actual value would > probably be more robust. I take the above as an indication that it is not yet clear if we can use the same GIT_TEST_CMP as others on MinGW. And ... >> For the time being, I suggest to take Dscho's patch. > > The patch is intended to make comparisons faster. That works for big > files, but the test suite compares small ones. The total duration of > a test suite run is about one minute longer with the patch than without > it for me [1]. I retried with 7c2ef319c5 (The first batch for 2.40, > 2022-12-19), and that's still the case. Do you get different numbers? ... this indeed is a valid concern. With or without the patch, platform tools on MinGW that are muddy about CRLF vs LF are taken care of with the special cased GIT_TEST_CMP either way.