Re: [smoke@work: Report /home/smoke/Smoke]
[email protected] (H . Merijn Brand)
| Newsgroups | perl.daily-build |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon 03 Sep 2001 12:20, Michael G Schwern <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:31:35AM +0200, H. Merijn Brand wrote: > > On Mon 03 Sep 2001 10:42, Nicholas Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What do we do about t/op/rand.t? > > > It's expected to fail .1% of the time. We're running enough tests that this > > > should show up regularly. > > Why not just increase the # of reps by a factor of ten? That should > lover the chanced of the test failing. It increases the time of the > test by less than a half second here (PowerPC G3/266). Acceptable > I'll do that. And strip that useless srand. Will that gain back that 1/2 a sec ?-) > > And the same for time.t, the test that sparsly fails in Simon's > > reports, though I think someone is looking at loosening the > > restraints for that test to pass as by Arthur's request. > > I'm fixing up that test. What bit tends to fail? Don't know. Just saw his reports with an 'F' popping up somtimes for time.t and thoight it not forward-worthy Still digging and crawling through AIX 4.3 and HP-UX 10.20 mud ... -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/) using perl-5.6.1, 5.7.1 & 628 on HP-UX 10.20 & 11.00, AIX 4.2, AIX 4.3, WinNT 4, Win2K pro & WinCE 2.11. Smoking perl CORE: [email protected] http://archives.develooper.com/[email protected]/ [email protected] send smoke reports to: [email protected], QA: http://qa.perl.org