[PING] [PATCH] Fix parameters of __tsan_vptr_update

Mike Stump mikestump@comcast.net
Mon Jan 19 15:46:00 GMT 2015


On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if
> they work reliably!).

Let me state it more forcefully.  sleeps are not now, nor in the history of computing ever been a synchronization primitive, except for hard real time systems.  If they were, you would be able to cite a paper that uses them.  If I am wrong, I’d welcome a cite.  Any failure of sleep to work is a indication that that system is not a real time system, and the entirety of the gcc test suite is non-real time code (unless someone snuck some in while I wasn’t watching).  Only a synchronization primitive can make the test cases deterministic, therefore, sleep can never be used as a syntonization primitive in the gcc test suite.

> Kostya, you had experience with both approaches. What are you thoughts on this?
> StealthNotification definitely makes tests faster and more reliable.

To me, reliability isn’t a continuum for the gcc test suite.  It is binary.  It is, or, is not reliable and deterministic.  The standard for the gcc test suite is to be realible and deterministic.

> can't really come up with any objective downsides.

Nor I.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list