chandlerc added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802#274847, @ABataev wrote:
> Hi Chandler, thanks for the review. > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802#272053, @chandlerc wrote: > > > I've also had one test fail, and then start passing for me on Linux (after > > fixing the above). I haven't had it fail again, but I don't have a good way > > of running tests repeatedly (see below, llvm-lit doesn't yet work). It > > might be good to give the test suite a good 10 or 50 runs and see if > > anything starts failing. I'll do that overnight and report back if so. > > > Actually, these tests are written so, that they repeats about 1000 times to > be sure that they are correct. But some of them might be sensible to system > load. Hmm, so I think we need to find some way to make some of these tests more reliable. With the fix from http://reviews.llvm.org/D14055 patched in (minus the flag change in it) I am seeing tests fail pretty regularly: libomp :: worksharing/for/omp_for_schedule_auto.c This test seems to fail pretty frequently for me. Maybe as much as half the time. libomp :: worksharing/sections/omp_sections_nowait.c This test fails less frequently, but still have seen it a few times. libomp :: flush/omp_flush.c I've seen this test fail just once... http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits