On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if > they work reliably!).
Let me state it more forcefully. sleeps are not now, nor in the history of computing ever been a synchronization primitive, except for hard real time systems. If they were, you would be able to cite a paper that uses them. If I am wrong, I’d welcome a cite. Any failure of sleep to work is a indication that that system is not a real time system, and the entirety of the gcc test suite is non-real time code (unless someone snuck some in while I wasn’t watching). Only a synchronization primitive can make the test cases deterministic, therefore, sleep can never be used as a syntonization primitive in the gcc test suite. > Kostya, you had experience with both approaches. What are you thoughts on > this? > StealthNotification definitely makes tests faster and more reliable. To me, reliability isn’t a continuum for the gcc test suite. It is binary. It is, or, is not reliable and deterministic. The standard for the gcc test suite is to be realible and deterministic. > can't really come up with any objective downsides. Nor I.
