Zachary Ware added the comment: I ran the same test on all of the Windows buildbots, with the following results:
x86 XP-4: http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20XP-4%20custom/builds/33/steps/test/logs/stdio monotonic: good time: good clock/perf_counter: 10 failures x86 Windows7 http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20Windows7%20custom/builds/37/steps/test/logs/stdio monotonic: good time: 24 failures clock/perf_counter: 11 failures AMD64 Windows7 SP1 http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows7%20SP1%20custom/builds/41/steps/test/logs/stdio All good x86 Windows Server 2003 http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20Windows%20Server%202003%20%5BSB%5D%20custom/builds/33/steps/test/logs/stdio monotonic: good time: good clock/perf_counter: all failures AMD64 Windows Server 2008R2 http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows%20Server%202008%20%5BSB%5D%20custom/builds/17/steps/test/logs/stdio All good x86 Windows Server 2008R2 http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/x86%20Windows%20Server%202008%20%5BSB%5D%20custom/builds/0/steps/test/logs/stdio All good Also, I noticed three different resolutions for monotonic: mine, Tim's, and 0.0100144 on the XP-4 bot. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20101> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com