On Jun 23, 2022, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 23/06/2022 08:44, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4669 Thanks! > This problem should be fixed now in the RTEMS master branch. Double thanks! I've applied the patch, and I haven't seen the fails any more. It's a little too soon to confirm it fixed, but the patch makes plenty of sense. > I had to adjust the test case so that it works in a system with only > one processor: *nod*, I ran into that myself, and IIRC I've pushed an equivalent fix earlier this week. Anyway... I was considering this xfail patch before, and I wonder if it would still be appropriate to install something like it, narrowed down to rtems < 6.1, or if it would be better to let it fail noisily so that people look it up, find the fix proper and merge it. libstdc++: xfail nanosleep tests on rtems Since it has been determined that nanosleep may return slightly too early on RTEMS, due to clock resolution differences, expect 30_thread/this_thread tests that have detected too-early wakeups to fail on RTEMS targets. for libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog * testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc: xfail on RTEMS. --- .../testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc index 12dbeba1cc492..4d86e0df20de4 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/this_thread/60421.cc @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ // { dg-require-gthreads "" } // { dg-require-time "" } // { dg-require-sleep "" } +// { dg-xfail-if "nanosleep may wake up too early" { *-*-rtems* } } #include <thread> #include <chrono> -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
