Proposal
Similarly to how mir-opt tests can generate an output file for each bit width, we would allow ui tests to do the same for its stderr/stdout dump files. This would be entirely opt-in, so all ui tests keep behaving as they do now, but if you add
// emit-stderr-for-each-bitwidth
to the test file, then you get a .64bit.stderr file instead of a plain .stderr file. When you run the test on 32 bit you get a .32bit.stderr file. Only the file for your platform is tested, so you need to rerun the test with --target i686-unknown-linux-gnu on a 64 bit host in order to check the 32 bit test file.
The reason I am suggesting this is that it's nearly impossible to specify a useful normalization regex for rust-lang/rust#76881 . The point is to test the output, ideally for each platform individually.
Mentors or Reviewers
Process
The main points of the Major Change Process is as follows:
You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.
Comments
This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.
Proposal
Similarly to how mir-opt tests can generate an output file for each bit width, we would allow ui tests to do the same for its stderr/stdout dump files. This would be entirely opt-in, so all ui tests keep behaving as they do now, but if you add
// emit-stderr-for-each-bitwidthto the test file, then you get a
.64bit.stderrfile instead of a plain.stderrfile. When you run the test on 32 bit you get a.32bit.stderrfile. Only the file for your platform is tested, so you need to rerun the test with--target i686-unknown-linux-gnuon a 64 bit host in order to check the 32 bit test file.The reason I am suggesting this is that it's nearly impossible to specify a useful normalization regex for rust-lang/rust#76881 . The point is to test the output, ideally for each platform individually.
Mentors or Reviewers
Process
The main points of the Major Change Process is as follows:
@rustbot second.-C flag, then full team check-off is required.@rfcbot fcp mergeon either the MCP or the PR.You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.
Comments
This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.