156016 2016-03-30 01:57:13 -0700 REGRESSION (r198808): 16 32-bit JSC tests fail after adding support for ES6 Symbol.isConcatSpreadable 2016-04-04 01:56:06 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit JavaScriptCore WebKit Nightly Build Unspecified Unspecified RESOLVED FIXED P2 Normal --- 155351 1 ddkilzer webkit-unassigned ap keith_miller ossy ryanhaddad oldest_to_newest 1179023 0 ddkilzer 2016-03-30 01:57:13 -0700 Between the Yosemite and El Capitan bots: Yosemite: <https://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20Yosemite%2032-bit%20JSC%20(BuildAndTest)?numbuilds=50> El Capitan: <https://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20El%20Capitan%2032-bit%20JSC%20(BuildAndTest)?numbuilds=50> I found that r198808 (the fix for Bug 155351) caused 16 JSC tests to fail on 32-bit testers: Build: <https://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20Yosemite%2032-bit%20JSC%20%28BuildAndTest%29/builds/8602> List of failing tests: ** The following JSC stress test failures have been introduced: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/Object-assign.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/Object-assign.js.layout-ftl-eager-no-cjit stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.always-trigger-copy-phase stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.default stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.default-ftl stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.dfg-eager stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.dfg-eager-no-cjit-validate stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.dfg-maximal-flush-validate-no-cjit stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-eager stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-eager-no-cjit stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-no-cjit-no-inline-validate stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-no-cjit-no-put-stack-validate stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-no-cjit-small-pool stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.ftl-no-cjit-validate-sampling-profiler stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.no-cjit-validate-phases stress/array-concat-spread-object.js.no-llint Results for JSC stress tests: 16 failures found. 1179035 1 ossy 2016-03-30 02:55:30 -0700 *** Bug 156017 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 1179073 2 ap 2016-03-30 09:32:26 -0700 Is there any reason to not just roll out the patch, as we normally do? 1179090 3 ossy 2016-03-30 10:25:25 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > Is there any reason to not just roll out the patch, as we normally do? No. Except that I don't roll out others patches even if they broke the whole world. The author should watch the bots after landing a patch and should rollout the buggy patch him/herself. 1180306 4 ossy 2016-04-04 01:56:06 -0700 Close, because the original change was rolled out.