emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#21620: closed (GMP 6.0.0a intermittent test failur


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#21620: closed (GMP 6.0.0a intermittent test failure on armhf)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 19:44:02 +0000

Your message dated Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:43:23 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#21620: tests/mpz/reuse intermittently fails on 
armhf-linux-gnu
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #21620,
regarding GMP 6.0.0a intermittent test failure on armhf
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
21620: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21620
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: GMP 6.0.0a intermittent test failure on armhf Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:33:21 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
‘tests/mpz/reuse’ intermittently fails on armhf:

  http://hydra.gnu.org/build/704686/nixlog/1/raw

Running this program in a loop easily reproduces the problem, but not
deterministically (different parts fail.)

Ludo’.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#21620: tests/mpz/reuse intermittently fails on armhf-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:43:23 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
>
>> Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>> Do you think it’s a likely problem?  Andreas, could you try again on
>>>> your Novena with 2 cores turned off?
>>>
>>> I have trouble believing the explanation of overheating. The gmp test
>>> suite is carried out sequentially (they are not yet using the parallel
>>> test harness of the autotools). So one could only imagine that the build
>>> itself was faulty, but should then the test not fail consistently 
>>> afterwards?
>>> If I understood correctly, you used one build and ran the same test
>>> over and over again. On the other hand, since the machine also serves as a
>>> build machine, it is possible that some other package was built at the same
>>> time as the tests were carried out, which may have contributed to heating.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I think the only way to test the hypothesis is to turn off 2 processors
>> and run that test in a loop again, and/or to do that on a different
>> ARMv7 platform altogether.
>
> Did you have a chance to do that?  What can we conclude?

I don’t think we’ve had this problem again, which suggests that the
overheating hypothesis was right.

Closing!

Ludo’.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]