> I found this a bit difficult to parse, so I'm going to try and summarize, > please tell me if I've got it right or wrong. > > The code in question is not explicitly marked as being Darwin specific; > however, to date we've only managed to exercise it on Darwin. Therefore, any > fix is likely to be fairly specific to Darwin's unique characteristics. > > Furthermore, Kai believes that any new test would be redundant with the > existing tests that are currently failing on Darwin. > > Is that a correct summary?
That seems correct, yes. Something in Darwin’s handling of visibility triggers it. One more point, unanswered in what I’ve seen, is this from Iain: > b) I'd like a clear explanation of what it's supposed to do so that we can > examine why it doesn't do that.. > c) ..and, until we fix it it, it should be disabled or left out. FX
