http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/181326 made the following tests fail on AArch64 Linux: FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-no-llint FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-ftl-eager-no-cjit FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int8array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int8array.js.layout-no-llint FAIL: jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int8array.js.layout-ftl-eager-no-cjit jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: DIFF FAILURE! jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: --- ../.tests/jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/dfg-int16array-expected.txt 2015-03-12 09:21:28.000000000 -0700 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: +++ ../jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit.out 2015-03-12 10:36:15.100000000 -0700 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: @@ -5126,12 +5126,12 @@ jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 20, 30840) is 30840 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 21, -31097) is -31097 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 22, 31354) is 31354 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: -PASS getter(a, 23, -31611) is -31611 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: +FAIL getter(a, 23, -31611) should be -31611. Was -31611. jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 24, 31868) is 31868 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: -PASS getter(a, 25, -32125) is -32125 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: +FAIL getter(a, 25, -32125) should be -32125. Was -32125. jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 26, 32382) is 32382 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: -PASS getter(a, 27, -32639) is -32639 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: -PASS getter(a, 28, 32896) is -32640 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: +FAIL getter(a, 27, -32639) should be -32639. Was -32639. jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: +FAIL getter(a, 28, 32896) should be -32640. Was -32640. jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 29, -33153) is 32383 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 30, 33410) is -32126 jsc-layout-tests.yaml/js/script-tests/dfg-int16array.js.layout-dfg-eager-no-cjit: PASS getter(a, 31, -33667) is 31869 All of these failure is similar, X != X, how is it possible?
+FAIL getter(a, 23, -31611) should be -31611. Was -31611. Weird.
I have no clue. The patch contained no functional change, but if a function marked NORETURN has a return statement then things could get wonky. But there would definitely be a compiler warning about that.
It seems the patch in bug142575 fixes this issue. (or fixed by other patch in trunk nowadays - will check soon)
(In reply to comment #3) > It seems the patch in bug142575 fixes this issue. (or fixed by other patch > in trunk nowadays - will check soon) Argh, I forgot to revert the local revert of r181326. :) Please ignore this comment, the bug is still valid on trunk.
I'm going to skip it on Linux too, these tests fail on iOS too, but we don't know if it is the same bug or not. See bug138390 for details.
(In reply to comment #5) > I'm going to skip it on Linux too, these tests fail on iOS too, but > we don't know if it is the same bug or not. See bug138390 for details. I really think this is a dup of bug138390. Preparing a patch for that bug now.
Landed fix for bug138390 in change set r182091: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182091>. I kept the tests as skipped for linux for someone with a linux system to verify that my fix takes care of this issue as well.
(In reply to comment #7) > Landed fix for bug138390 in change set r182091: > <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182091>. I kept the tests as skipped for > linux for someone with a linux system to verify that my fix takes care of > this issue as well. Thanks for the fix, I checked it on Linux, these test pass now, so I already unskipped them - http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182110 . *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 138390 ***