Avoiding sleep in V3 testsuite
Paolo Carlini
pcarlini@suse.de
Tue Dec 28 01:04:00 GMT 2004
Hi,
>Here's a sketch of how I'm proposing to fix this. (I'll figure out a
>better way to define _GLIBCXX_SYSV_SEM.) Any objections?
>
>
First blush, certainly not from me.
>(Actually, come to think of it, I can't see any reason that we need
>synchronization at all in this test -- except maybe that we're using
>"exit" -- rather than "_exit" -- to leave the child, which seems
>confused in and of itself. Since this test uses fifos, we can safely
>assume that _exit exists. So, I guess to fix 9507.cc, in particular,
>it would suffice just to remove the sleep calls.)
>
>
Actually, as probably you already noticed, I'm guilty of adding those sleep
to that testcase: after the previous commit, changing the openmore, I saw
intermittent failures on some archs, and tried quickly fixing the problem
following our usual rough sleep-based strategy... In case you eventually
decide to only remove completely the sleeps in this case, please make sure
to regtest on many archs.
Thanks!
Paolo.
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list