Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 16278 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2007 05:08:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 2007 05:08:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 85643 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2007 05:08:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 85593 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2007 05:08:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 85582 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2007 05:08:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:08:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.40.195.232] (HELO verdesmares.com) (209.40.195.232) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:08:10 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.181] (unknown [201.21.162.101]) by verdesmares.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D9F1DBC4003; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4711A3E9.7030905@apache.org> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:06:49 -0300 From: Davi Arnaut User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." CC: APR Developer List Subject: Re: testcond failure on linux References: <471174BA.7090207@rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: <471174BA.7090207@rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > pipe_consumer() test... > > /* naive fairness test */ > ABTS_INT_EQUAL(tc, 1, !!consumed); > } > > at line 383 is failing (expected 1 but !!consumed evaluates to 0). > > Can someone familiar with the condvar logic comment, is the test simply > too naive to trust? Or is there an actual issue? This happens on; > It's a naive test that's supposed to show when one thread got starved and never got a chance to read from the pipe. Safe to ignore, and I forgot to remove it. -- Davi Arnaut