From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2510 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2008 04:15:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 2501 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2008 04:15:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:15:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973F92A9694; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9m0qKoZqpUS9; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2E02A9690; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D41E2E7ACB; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:15:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:15:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix watch_thread_num testcase for ppc32 Message-ID: <20080109041508.GA21281@adacore.com> References: <1199849652.22083.20.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1199849652.22083.20.camel@gargoyle> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 > The watch_thread_num.exp testcase was timing out on a number of > iterations for PPC32, while giving a full pass for PPC64. Removing the > usleep(1) call fixed the problem. It gives full passes for both PPC > 32/64. Would you mind sending the log files when it times out? I don't understand why removing the usleep fixes the problem. I'm a bit concerned with removing this delay because the thread would then be free to eat up all the CPU, and the test is creating quite a number of them... Thanks, -- Joel