On May 5, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 02:46:52AM -0400, Brian Gernhardt wrote: >>> t1450-fsck fails in test 10 "tag pointing to something else than its type", but only if I run it as part of the full test suite (with either `make test` or `make prove`). If I run the test separately, it passes. >>> >>> The output from running with GIT_TEST_OPTS="-v" is: >>> >>> expecting success: >>> sha=$(echo blob | git hash-object -w --stdin) && >>> test_when_finished "remove_object $sha" && >>> cat >wrong-tag <<-EOF && >>> object $sha >>> type commit >>> tag wrong >>> tagger T A Gger <tagger@xxxxxxxxxxx> 1234567890 -0000 >>> >>> This is an invalid tag. >>> EOF >>> >>> tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin <wrong-tag) && >>> test_when_finished "remove_object $tag" && >>> echo $tag >.git/refs/tags/wrong && >>> test_when_finished "git update-ref -d refs/tags/wrong" && >>> test_must_fail git fsck --tags 2>out && >>> cat out && >>> grep "error in tag.*broken links" out >>> >>> tagged commit 63499e4ea8e096b831515ceb1d5a7593e4d87ae5 (wrong) in 66f6581d549f70e05ca586bc2df5c15a95662c36 >>> missing commit 63499e4ea8e096b831515ceb1d5a7593e4d87ae5 >>> error: Object 63499e4ea8e096b831515ceb1d5a7593e4d87ae5 is a commit, not a blob >>> error: 63499e4ea8e096b831515ceb1d5a7593e4d87ae5: object corrupt or missing >>> not ok - 10 tag pointing to something else than its type > > So how did you bisect down to it? You said reverting e96c19c fixes it, > which does seem like strong evidence, but what I am wondering is if a > _different_ test in t1450 fails at e96c19c. That would point to > something else funny going on. I actually bisected the test failure to "c5a5f12e: Merge branch 'ef/maint-strbuf-init'", and then rebased e96c19c on top of 2a2dbd2 to see what actually caused the error. I re-ran it like this again today and got the exact same error. > Double weird is that my output for t1450.10 is totally different from > that. Which commit are you testing on? The original e-mail was from next at that point. The output from the rebased version and current next (76e37e2) is identical. > Given that the problem seems racy and intermittent, have you tried > running under valgrind? This is on my OS X laptop and last I knew valgrind was very buggy on OS X, so I've never tried it. I'll install it now and see if I can get anything useful out of it. ~~ Brian-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html