Add test for issue #10221 #10231
Merged
Add test for issue #10221 #10231
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I'd guess the AppVeyor 32-bit failure is nothing to worry about? |
|
I can't seem to access the log for some reason. It is something to worry about, I'd consider it release-blocking if we were closer to 0.4 rc stage, but it very likely has nothing to do with this PR and is an instance of #10045. |
timholy
force-pushed
the
teh/test10221
branch
from
8bfbeec to
8744f28
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds a test for the segfault in #10221.
Like @JeffBezanson and @carnaval, I found that when run as part of a script I needed the
versioninfo()call, and am redirecting stdio to suppress output. (For whatever reason,versioninfo(IOBuffer())did not trigger the segfault.) I remember some rare Travis failures in conjunction with #8251, which also used I/O redirection, so I suppose there is some risk here (hence the PR). But I also wonder if those might have been due to the interesting observations made by @garrison in #10218.