Test Failure: GC/API/Refresh/Refresh/Refresh.cmd

[JulieLeeMSFT]

Failed in (1):

• gc-standalone 20260430.1

Console Log: Console Log
Source: gc-standalone / coreclr linux x64 Checked gcstandaloneserver @ AzureLinux.3.Amd64.Open / GC/API/Refresh/Refresh/Refresh.cmd

Failed tests:

- coreclr linux arm64 Checked gcstandalone @ AzureLinux.3.Arm64.Open
- coreclr linux arm64 Checked gcstandaloneserver @ AzureLinux.3.Arm64.Open
- coreclr linux x64 Checked gcstandalone @ AzureLinux.3.Amd64.Open
- coreclr linux x64 Checked gcstandaloneserver @ AzureLinux.3.Amd64.Open
- coreclr windows arm64 Checked gcstandalone @ Windows.11.Arm64.Open
- coreclr windows arm64 Checked gcstandaloneserver @ Windows.11.Arm64.Open
- coreclr windows x64 Checked gcstandalone @ Windows.10.Amd64.Open
- coreclr windows x64 Checked gcstandaloneserver @ Windows.10.Amd64.Open
  - GC/API/Refresh/Refresh/Refresh.cmd

Error Message:

Xunit.Sdk.EqualException: Assert.Equal() Failure: Values differ
Expected: 100
Actual:   101
   at Xunit.Assert.Equal[T](T expected, T actual, IEqualityComparer`1 comparer) in /_/src/arcade/src/Microsoft.DotNet.XUnitAssert/src/EqualityAsserts.cs:line 102
   at __GeneratedMainWrapper.Main()

Stack Trace:

at Xunit.Assert.Equal[T](T expected, T actual, IEqualityComparer`1 comparer) in /_/src/arcade/src/Microsoft.DotNet.XUnitAssert/src/EqualityAsserts.cs:line 102
at __GeneratedMainWrapper.Main()

[dotnet-policy-service]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @dotnet/gc
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

[mangod9]

The issue with standalone is that it's still using clrgc.dll which is the non-regions based GC and doesnt have the latest updates made to regions only functionality. I think at this point we should move to using clrgcexp.dll (it will drop support for segments, but I think the x86 legs are probably testing that reasonably well and segments on x64 is not been used for a few years now)

[jkotas]

segments on x64 is not been used for a few years now

Should we stop shipping clrgc.dll binary for 64-bit desktop platforms?

move to using clrgcexp.dll

clrgcexp has the exact same code as regular built-in GC at this point. We may want to a have a few tests to verify that it is not completely broken. I do not think we need a full separate CI run to test it.

[mangod9]

Should we stop shipping clrgc.dll binary for 64-bit desktop platforms?

yeah we might as well.

clrgcexp has the exact same code as regular built-in GC at this point. We may want to a have a few tests to verify that it is not completely broken. I do not think we need a full separate CI run to test it.

agree, maybe some manual test with DOTNET_GCName should suffice perhaps in outerloop pipeline.