Hi Peff, On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:45:02PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Typically, on Linux the test passes. On Windows, it fails virtually > > every time due to an access violation (that's a segmentation fault for > > you Unix-y people out there). And Windows would be correct: the > > regexec() call wants to operate on a regular, NUL-terminated string, > > there is no NUL in the mmap()ed memory range, and it is undefined > > whether the next byte is even legal to access. > > > > When run with --valgrind it demonstrates quite clearly the breakage, of > > course. > > > > So we simply mark it with `test_expect_success` for now. > > I'd prefer if this were marked as expect_failure. It fails reliably for > me on Linux, even without --valgrind. But even if that were not so, > there is no reason to hurt bisectability of somebody running with > "--valgrind" (not when it costs so little to mark it correctly). Forgot to say in the cover letter: I did change this from test_expect_success to test_expect_failure. But of course, now I remember that I failed to change it back in 3/3. Bah. Ciao, Dscho