On 15/02/16 10:07, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 15/02/16 09:07, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
>> first.
>
>As I tried to explain in the follow-up comment
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c3 ),
>since unfortunately I have no reliable way of reproducing the failure, there's
no defined way to 'try' something.
But your proposed patch is also only guessing.
I've tried to be as clear as possible in the RFC submission that I'm not
certain about the cause of the failure, and that the patch is proposing
a fix that would make that guessed failure cause explicit.
Sure pthread_create can fail, as malloc and mmap.
But if that is the reason for the failure it would happen
just randomly, everywhere.
Why do you think that only this test case shows the problem?
As I explained in the RFC submission, my reasoning there was that the
test is one of the very few test cases that tests the result of
pthread_create and then returns 0, which causes the failure in
combination with dg-shouldfail.
But thinking about it some more, even if pthread_create would fail,
causing the testcase to fail in execution, allowing the execution test
to pass due to dg-shouldfail, presumably the dg-output test would still
fail in that case, so my reasoning was not sound.
So I suppose you're right, indeed the pthread_create fail hypothesis is
not the most logical one.
Still, the patch is an improvement irrespective of the PR that inspired
it, and perhaps a lot more library calls should be checked for errors
that just pthread_create.
I think Dmitry's comment may be right on the point.
If someone proposes that as a patch for the testcase, great. I'm more
that willing to test that in my setup to be able to claim 'bootstrapped
and reg-tested on x86_64' in the submission.
I'm just trying to point out that I cannot 'try' out that patch and come
back with the conformation that 'the patch fixes the failure', given the
nature of the failure.
Thanks,
- Tom
