On 11/4/21 3:46 PM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
On Monday 20 September 2021 at 03:36 pm +0000, Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Convert test helper to use `start_bg_command()` when spawning a server
daemon in the background rather than blocks of platform-specific code.
Also, while here, remove _() translation around error messages since
this is a test helper and not Git code.
As part of testing the v2.34.0-rc0 release candidate on Cygwin, I've
found this commit -- 05881a6fc9 (t/helper/simple-ipc: convert
test-simple-ipc to use start_bg_command, 2021-09-20), according to my
bisecting -- is causing t0052.1 to fail on 32-bit Cygwin. Somehow this
is only affecting the 32-bit Cygwin build; the 64-bit build is working
as expected.
Specifically, the failure I'm seeing is as below:
```
$ GIT_TRACE=1 sh t0052-simple-ipc.sh -vix
trace: built-in: git init '/cygdrive/d/git-32/t/trash directory.t0052-simple-ipc'
Initialized empty Git repository in /cygdrive/d/git-32/t/trash directory.t0052-simple-ipc/.git/
expecting success of 0052.1 'start simple command server':
test_atexit stop_simple_IPC_server &&
test-tool simple-ipc start-daemon --threads=8 &&
test-tool simple-ipc is-active
++ test_atexit stop_simple_IPC_server
++ test 0 = 0
++ test_atexit_cleanup='{ stop_simple_IPC_server
} && (exit "$eval_ret"); eval_ret=$?; :'
++ test-tool simple-ipc start-daemon --threads=8
trace: run_command: test-tool simple-ipc run-daemon --name=ipc-test --threads=8
error: daemon failed to start
error: last command exited with $?=1
not ok 1 - start simple command server
#
# test_atexit stop_simple_IPC_server &&
# test-tool simple-ipc start-daemon --threads=8 &&
# test-tool simple-ipc is-active
#
++ stop_simple_IPC_server
++ test-tool simple-ipc stop-daemon
++ exit 1
++ eval_ret=1
++ :
```
I've had a look at the code changes, and cannot work out what might be
being handled differently in 32-bit and 64-bit Cygwin environments.
Given the Cygwin project is considering dropping support for 32-bit
Cygwin anyway, it might not be worth doing anything about this. But I
thought it worth reporting in case there's something obvious to folk
more familiar with this code.
How odd! Thanks for the report. I'll investigate.
Jeff
