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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 016221F463 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 16:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726800AbfLAQdT (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:33:19 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62045 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726393AbfLAQdS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:33:18 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9091C4BA; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:33:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=vM4nhPSOqBAxq5mS1BB0Hihq2qs=; b=YH0OPg yEsY0YKKEpSXVXNegsn8NV+vfMgZeKWSSIQ2rzPA2/7FvTHFl7JWxYncEdbRfOZr JNPMCe2xEgxhxmkuul59fRGNq6aUeAzW3DU3mJxDqxxxLE5pwKXSAez8D0yD/BRe 8v66QuNUBYRFiJYF8astqORUo5BwBoi7ylbFc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=GhnYM1+ukEeKyQJo/Z1gFSn2zt2zao7E vFq4AWberqxgJQzFlNl6l/MxYjLCaTkXC49/4/N/vjV4Cten/BoaYzf3HO0K/oYI K1531eFR+Fo+K1b1eJ/hBAfxqi2/939YVj3EIPX4+ikwJI0WL6xXi8NJAeSv0i1e UgCXZZlDG1g= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624C61C4B9; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:33:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C560D1C4B8; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:33:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Todd Zullinger , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= , Beat Bolli , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t7812: expect failure for grep -i with invalid UTF-8 data References: <20191130004653.8794-1-tmz@pobox.com> <87a78ddc9o.fsf@hase.home> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 08:33:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87a78ddc9o.fsf@hase.home> (Andreas Schwab's message of "Sat, 30 Nov 2019 09:00:35 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 465AA93A-1458-11EA-B6F2-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Andreas Schwab writes: > On Nov 29 2019, Todd Zullinger wrote: > >> When the 'grep with invalid UTF-8 data' tests were added/adjusted in >> 8a5999838e (grep: stess test PCRE v2 on invalid UTF-8 data, 2019-07-26) >> and 870eea8166 (grep: do not enter PCRE2_UTF mode on fixed matching, >> 2019-07-26) they lacked a redirect which caused them to falsely succeed >> on most architectures. They failed on big-endian arches where the test >> never reached the portion which was missing the redirect. > > It's not about big vs little endian, it's only about JIT vs non-JIT. So, which one of JIT / non-JIT sides did the test fail unexpectedly? Should I do s/on big-endian arches/with PCRE with JIT disabled/ while queuing the patch? Thanks.