Todd Zullinger [off-list ref] writes:

Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:29:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Given this and the above, I would probably err on the side of
designating this as 'test_lazy_prereq' or otherwise silencing the output
of 'test_cmp' so that this does not taint the TAP output.

We can argue the merit and demerit with a good log message.  The
central issue at hand is how precious 52a9 in the script lost by
this patch is (in other words, are we checking more than "is our
char signed or unsigned?").

Ultimately, I don't mind much which way we go. But if we want to retain
this, would you mind sending a rewritten v2, Taylor? I feel like you're
in a better position to argue why we should retain it.

Is this something which can be merged before 2.55.0 final?
It's certainly not a grave issue, but it is a new test
failure for anyone who diligently runs the test suite on
many (most?) non-x86 architectures.  It seems a shame to
punish those folks. :)

FWIW, Tested-by: Todd Zullinger [off-list ref]

I tested the earlier test_lazy_prereq version as well.

Good that you pinged, as I forgot that we haven't seen Taylor for
some time.  Let's merge down Patrick's one you have already tested
while leaving it as an option to resurrect the "52a9 is still
precious" tweak from Taylor perhaps after the release.

Thanks.