Skip to content

crossbeam-utils: test src/cache_padded.rs (line 35) ... FAILED (on armv7hl) #668

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
decathorpe opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #886
Closed

crossbeam-utils: test src/cache_padded.rs (line 35) ... FAILED (on armv7hl) #668

decathorpe opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #886

Comments

@decathorpe
Copy link

failures:
---- src/cache_padded.rs - cache_padded::CachePadded (line 35) stdout ----
Test executable failed (exit code 101).
stderr:
thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: addr2 - addr1 >= 64', src/cache_padded.rs:10:1
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
    src/cache_padded.rs - cache_padded::CachePadded (line 35)
test result: FAILED. 110 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 20.39s

The same test passes fine with crossbeam-utils 0.8.1, and the only relevant change I see is 1e16fc0. It appears the new heuristics are wrong for 32-bit ARM (armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf target).

@taiki-e
Copy link
Member

taiki-e commented Feb 26, 2021

We need to fix that test (like #641). And it would be nice if 32-bit arm target could be added to CI.

@taiki-e
Copy link
Member

taiki-e commented May 27, 2021

it would be nice if 32-bit arm target could be added to CI.

Hmm. cross doesn't run doctest (cross-rs/cross#225), so cases like this issue cannot be detected by adding 32-bit arm test to CI.

@taiki-e
Copy link
Member

taiki-e commented Mar 16, 2022

I found a way to cross-testing doctests -- I will fix this issue as part of #801.

taiki-e added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 23, 2022
@bors bors bot closed this as completed in 7181f02 Jul 23, 2022
@decathorpe
Copy link
Author

Hum, it looks like the wrong PR closed this issue?
Because this failure is still happening with 0.8.11, or was that fix not pushed in time for that release?

@taiki-e
Copy link
Member

taiki-e commented Jul 28, 2022

was that fix not pushed in time for that release?

Yes. The fix has not been released yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants