The Inbox: KernelTests-dtl.373.mcz

> David T. Lewis uploaded a new version of KernelTests to project The Inbox:
> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/KernelTests-dtl.373.mcz
>
> ==================== Summary ====================
>
> Name: KernelTests-dtl.373
> Author: dtl
> Time: 7 December 2019, 10:48:40.810923 am
> UUID: 6b50ebb3-8a6f-47a1-b550-8420c5a4d1d9
> Ancestors: KernelTests-mt.372
>
> Add a trivial regression test for the VM bug discussed in http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2019-December/031973.html
>
> =============== Diff against KernelTests-mt.372 ===============
>
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: FloatTest>>testVMComparisonBug (in category 'tests - compare') -----
> + testVMComparisonBug
> + "See http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2019-December/031973.html for background"
> + self deny: 1.0 = 1.1
> + description: 'some VMs have been built with this bug'!
>
>

>
> Dave
>
>> On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 03:48:41PM +0000, [hidden email] wrote:
>> David T. Lewis uploaded a new version of KernelTests to project The Inbox:
>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/KernelTests-dtl.373.mcz
>>
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>
>> Name: KernelTests-dtl.373
>> Author: dtl
>> Time: 7 December 2019, 10:48:40.810923 am
>> UUID: 6b50ebb3-8a6f-47a1-b550-8420c5a4d1d9
>> Ancestors: KernelTests-mt.372
>>
>> Add a trivial regression test for the VM bug discussed in http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2019-December/031973.html
>>
>> =============== Diff against KernelTests-mt.372 ===============
>>
>> Item was added:
>> + ----- Method: FloatTest>>testVMComparisonBug (in category 'tests - compare') -----
>> + testVMComparisonBug
>> +    "See http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2019-December/031973.html for background"
>> +    self deny: 1.0 = 1.1
>> +        description: 'some VMs have been built with this bug'!
>>
>>
>

> On 2019-12-09, at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>> On Dec 7, 2019, at 7:52 AM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if this test has any value, but if it is VM issue that
>> may come back, then we may as well have coverage.
>>
>> Or is it the case that a VM with this issue is just going to completely
>> fail all of the float tests anyway?
>
> I would think that any VM that incorrectly computes 0.1 = 1.1 is going to fail many many tests.

>
>
> > On 2019-12-09, at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> >> On Dec 7, 2019, at 7:52 AM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ???I'm not sure if this test has any value, but if it is VM issue that
> >> may come back, then we may as well have coverage.
> >>
> >> Or is it the case that a VM with this issue is just going to completely
> >> fail all of the float tests anyway?
> >
> > I would think that any VM that incorrectly computes 0.1 = 1.1 is going to fail many many tests.
>
> But it's unlikely to be able to correctly work out how many... So at least senior management will be happy ;-)
>