René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:
>> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in
>> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:
>>      $ for i in $(seq 100); do
>>      > if ! ./ -i -v; then
>>      >     break;
>>      > fi
>>      > done
>>      $
>> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result
>> in a failure. :(
>> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)
>> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the
>> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]
> Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only, 
> is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS).


> I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though.

Yep, me too.

> Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave 
> out the option -v?

Yes, one of the "among other things" I tried was to drop the -v, but the
end result was the same. Also, since I have "DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove"
in my config.mak, I tried:

    $ for i in $(seq 100); do
    > if ! prove --exec sh; then
    >     break;
    > fi
    > done

But again, it didn't provoke a failure (it did run quite a bit faster ...).

I have now run this test file in excess of 600 times without failure in the
last two evenings (taking about 5-6 hours wallclock time).
[I haven't come remotely close to running the test-suite 600 times on
cygwin in the last 6 years ...]

So, I'm out of ideas (and will stop trying to reproduce the failure).

Ramsay Jones

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to