Until now I've had unit testing of thread-related code be pretty light because most of the failure cases are hangs. As standalone tests though, this seems a lot more reasonable.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: > Not so much. Good point. :) Though a test that has an alarm in it and > self-kills if it doesn't finish in some controlled amount of time isn't > that hard to do. I'll add to my todo list something to detect this sort > of problem at a high level in the tester as well. > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Steve Schveighoffer wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Steve Schveighoffer <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Discuss the phobos library for D <[email protected]> >> To: Discuss the phobos library for D <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [phobos] [D-runtime] Possible critical deadlock issue for 2.049 >> >> Will the autotester detect a deadlock? >> >> I'm not sure this is a good idea... >> >> -Steve >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Brad Roberts <[email protected]> >>> To: D's runtime library developers list <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Phobos <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:06:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [phobos] [D-runtime] Possible critical deadlock issue for 2.049 >>> >>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Sean Kelly wrote: >>> >>> You can check in a unit test that triggers the bug and watch the auto >>> tester. >>> >>> Not ideal, but functional. >>> >>> If it still needs testing when I get home tonight, I'll give it a shot >>> (it'll be 6-8 hours from now though). >>> >>>> Okay, I've made a bunch of changes to how thread initialization and >>>> termination is done. Tested to work on OSX with the deadlock case, but >>>> I think only Linux was deadlocking anyway. I don't have my Linux or >>>> Windows VMs handy, so if someone could verify that threads still work on >>>> Windows (via the sample in the ticket below) that would be fantastic. >>>> I'm building a new Linux VM on this machine to test there. >>>> >>>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Steve Schveighoffer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Have people seen these? >>>>> >>>>> >>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=117650 >>> >>>>> >>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4890 >>>>> >>>>> This might need an emergency release... seems like a really bad one. >>>>> >>>>> -Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> D-runtime mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> D-runtime mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> phobos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> phobos mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >> > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
