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: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:13:15 +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> <CANu=Dmj9FzniCSEZXDffASfow7GgLwdWUbjeN4jAbLjkX93KnA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Will Newton 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.
Applied now, thanks!
Maciej