Re: [boost] [RC_1_34_0] failures + analysis

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-25 13:54:38

Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>> testing.capture-output date_time/testmicrosec_time_clock.run
>> 
>>   looks like a Boost bug.
>>   
>>   2007-Feb-25 10:27:54
>>   2007-Feb-25 10:27:54.730125000
>>   Pass :: hours match 
>>   Pass :: minutes match 
>>   Pass :: seconds match 
>>   Pass :: hours date 
>>   Pass :: last is less 
>>   2007-Feb-25 10:27:54
>>   2007-Feb-25 10:27:54.730125000
>>   Pass :: hours match 
>>   Pass :: minutes match 
>>   Pass :: seconds match 
>>   Pass :: hours date 
>>   FAIL :: last is less 
>>   ...
>
> It's not a bug in the library -- your machine is too fast.  The test
> is, as much as anything, a test that the clock on the machine
> provides monotonically increasing values.  So there's 3 possible
> solutions.  1) Change the test to use >= in the time comparisons,

So you're telling me there's a bug in the test.  That's still "a Boost
bug."

> 2) increase the number of loops between 
> measurements, or 3) ignore it.

4) Keep looping and measuring until the value changes or a timeout
expires?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com