https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/995
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM, David Simcha <[email protected]> wrote: > The test is wrong, not the implementation of std.parallelism. > finish(false) doesn't guarantee that the task won't be finished, it just > means that the task *may* not be finished. IDK how this test made it in > there. I'll make a pull request to get rid of it. > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Masahiro Nakagawa <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I tested same configuration on Mac, but no failure. >> Failed test seems to depend on machine state. >> >> static void slowFun() { Thread.sleep(dur!"msecs"(1)); } >> auto pool1 = new TaskPool(); >> auto tSlow = task!slowFun(); >> pool1.put(tSlow); >> pool1.finish(); >> assert(!tSlow.done); >> >> Calling finish without true argument, finish doesn't wait the task. >> So the result of tSlow.done depends on the timing. >> >> I don't understand the std.parallelism deeply, >> but this failure may occurs on other environments. >> >> >> Masahiro >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > See: >> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?runid=36650&logid=6 >> > >> > Does anyone have the time to investigate this? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Alex >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
