Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 18961
Product:  
Component:  
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: DUPLICATE of bug 12096
Assigned To: Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned@gcc.gnu.org>
Host:
Reported against  
Priority:  
Severity:  
Target Milestone:  
 
 
Target:
Reporter: Chris Jefferson <chris@bubblescope.net>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
Build:
URL:
Summary:
Keywords:
Known to work:
Known to fail:

Attachment Description Type Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 18961 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 18961 blocks:

Additional Comments:






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Last confirmed: Opened: 2004-12-13 17:14
The following testsuite program fails when added to the libstdc++ testsuite:

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
  for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++)
    std::cout << "C" << std::endl;
}

Is there some reason for this?

------- Comment #1 From Andrew Pinski 2004-12-13 17:21 -------
Are you sure that this is not a dejagnu bug?
Or are you sure that you just don't get a timeout?

Also anything this long will most likely get a timeout on slow machines so, I really doubt that we want 
this, also one thing, we will be filling up the long and with oldder machines with that much space left 
on their hd, I don't think we want this either.

------- Comment #2 From Chris Jefferson 2004-12-13 17:56 -------
I'm fairly sure it's not a timeout (It takes <5 seconds to run on my computer).
It might be a dejagnu bug. Unfortunatly I find it very hard to find out exactly
what is causing this bug.

While I agree that allowing program's output to run out of control is a bad
idea, the problem with the current cutoff system is that it seems quite
unreliable. Around the mark at which the bug occurs (round about 200,000-300,000
characters on my computer) the test will sometimes run and sometimes fail. This
kind of unpredictable behaviour led me to a merry afternoon of debugging (I was
writing a test which outputed a large quantity of state information for testing
reasons) as it randomly appeared and disappeared. I do think that the behaviour
could be more reliable, and at least better documented.

------- Comment #3 From Joseph S. Myers 2005-02-06 18:46 -------
Does your version of expect include the patch in bug 12096?  If not, and
if using a version with that patch fixes your problem, then this would be
a duplicate of that bug.

------- Comment #4 From Chris Jefferson 2005-02-08 13:24 -------
Yep, that fixed it. Marking it as a dup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12096 ***

Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug