[NFC] Fix flakiness in test if run unsharded

[vitalybuka]

If we run all test in a single process, there is high
probability that 99 is already claimed.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-compiler-rt-sanitizer

Author: Vitaly Buka (vitalybuka)

Changes

If we run all test in a single process, there is high
probability that 99 is already claimed.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112439.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_chained_origin_depot_test.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_chained_origin_depot_test.cpp b/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_chained_origin_depot_test.cpp
index a557c4645ba0c5..61171019a5706d 100644
--- a/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_chained_origin_depot_test.cpp
+++ b/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_chained_origin_depot_test.cpp
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ TEST(SanitizerCommon, ChainedOriginDepotBasic) {
 
 TEST(SanitizerCommon, ChainedOriginDepotAbsent) {
   u32 prev_id;
-  EXPECT_EQ(0U, chainedOriginDepot.Get(99, &prev_id));
+  EXPECT_EQ(0U, chainedOriginDepot.Get(123456, &prev_id));
   EXPECT_EQ(0U, prev_id);
 }
 

[fmayer]

(I was told to use skip-precommit-approval label for CLs that I don't want reviewed)

[vitalybuka]

(I was told to use skip-presubmit-approval label for CLs that I don't want reviewed)

I don't know meaning of this label, I can find only https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20240722/601293.html which seems irrelevant.

[fmayer]

[vitalybuka]

Ok, it's documented, but it has a different name https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#code-review-workflow