[olodus]

Oh wow that is a really interesting test solution. That would be an interesting thing to add to all zig tests (I know they already have the testing allocator and good valgrind support but I don't think that tests/simulates oom).

I love things like these that use existing tests and expand the to just test further thing in already covered flows. We have done similar things at my work where we test expansion of data models against old models to check that we cover upgrade scenarios.

[squeek502]

There's support for exactly this type of OOM testing in Zig via std.testing.checkAllAllocationFailures:

- https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/1606717b5fed83ee64ba1a91...

- https://www.ryanliptak.com/blog/zig-intro-to-check-all-alloc...

[astrange]

This is a clear sign of a badly designed language. You should never see a fixed-size (less than page size) allocation fail, simply because there's nothing you can reasonably do if it does fail. Either you should crash or it should block until it is possible again.

(Where crash means a worker process or something limited to something less than the entire system. See Erlang for the logical extension of this.)

I realize this implies Windows and Java are badly designed and my answer to that is "yes".

[olodus]

Oh cool, didn't know that. Thanks.

[judofyr]

I've been using this helper: https://github.com/judofyr/zini/blob/ea91f645b7dc061adcedc91.... It starts by making the first allocation fail, then the second, then the third, and so on. As long as it returns OutOfMemory (without leaking memory) then everything is fine.