Bug#877428: mozjs52: FTBFS on mips64el: regress-157652.js timeout; regress-422348.js timeout; ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js got 150, expected 300

Control: retitle 877428 mozjs52: FTBFS on mips64el: regress-157652.js timeout; regress-422348.js timeout; ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js got 150, expected 300

[Re-sending to the correct clone, sorry for the noise]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 at 19:03:46 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 12:29:08 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > Let's track the mips64el failure in a different bug, as it's
> > completely different from this.
> 
> Cloned away. I haven't investigated those failures at all.

On mips64el there are a couple of timeouts (knowing mips*, probably
an arbitrary timeout is just too short):

TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | js1_5/Array/regress-157652.js | (args: "") | (TIMEOUT)
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | js1_5/Regress/regress-422348.js | (args: "") | (TIMEOUT)

and one more interesting-looking failure:

## ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js: rc = 3, run time = 0.483245
ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js:100:5 Error: Assertion failed: got 150, expected 300
Stack:
  TestChangeArrayPrototype@ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js:100:5
  @ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js:102:1
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | ecma_6/Array/for_of_1.js | (args: "")

These don't match the failures I see on s390x, powerpc or powerpc64
porterboxes with
<https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/smcv/mozjs52.git/log/?h=wip/s390x>.

Regards,
    smcv