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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
send smoke reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], QA: http://qa.perl.org
