ABataev added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802#276755, @hfinkel wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802#275471, @chandlerc wrote: > > > 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 > > > Credit goes to a colleague of mine, Ray Loy, for spotting this. This test has > a race condition. The updates to the global sum1 are not protected by any > kind of synchronization. > > sum1 = sum0; > > > the for pragma is missing a private(sum1) clause? > > > This test seems to fail pretty frequently for me. Maybe as much as half the > > time. > > > > > > libomp :: worksharing/sections/omp_sections_nowait.c > > > In omp_testsuite.h, we have this: > > /* following times are in seconds */ > #define SLEEPTIME 0.1 > > > and this test, and also omp_flush.c, are sensitive to this. If the machine is > heavily loaded, or otherwise configured, so the threads involved don't all > get scheduled within 0.1 seconds, this will certainly fail. > > Also, does this test have a race condition? Specifically, should there be a > > #pragma omp flush(count) > > > before > > if (count == 0) > > > I think there should be. > > > 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... > > > This is trying to test the memory flush pragma by having one thread write and > flush, and a second thread wait for a fixed time, flush and read. As > mentioned above, this is sensitive to SLEEPTIME. Hal, thanks for pointing this. I'll take a look and try to fix these tests. http://reviews.llvm.org/D13802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
