This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING][PATCH] stdlib/tst-strtod-overflow: Bump timeout up yet more
- From: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:13:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH] stdlib/tst-strtod-overflow: Bump timeout up yet more
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1406230137220 dot 25395 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1406301018250 dot 25395 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <53B1471E dot 8090303 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1407011201420 dot 25395 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
On 1 July 2014 12:04, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>> >> In our routine testing I observed that stdlib/tst-strtod-overflow is very
>> >> slow, especially on targets using soft-float or QEMU (where soft-float is
>> >> used internally), enough to time out even on slow boards we have that have
>> >> TIMEOUTFACTOR already bumped from the default of 1 up to 75.
>> >>
>> >> No other test case requires such a long timeout -- all the other
>> >> succeeding cases fit within their timeouts scaled by TIMEOUTFACTOR on
>> >> these boards. As such I think it's counter-productive to require
>> >> TIMEOUTFACTOR to be set as high as 450 globally for this lone outlier as
>> >> the value affects overall testing duration where there are test cases that
>> >> genuinely time out due to a defect. Therefore I propose the following
>> >> change that makes stdlib/tst-strtod-overflow pass on these slow boards
>> >> with TIMEOUTFACTOR of 75.
>> > Ping!
>> >
>> I don't have any objection to the patch, the explanation seems fair enough.
>
> Thanks for your input. Any other comments, anyone, or shall I treat it
> as the consensus?
The change looks ok to me too.
--
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro