From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16837 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2009 14:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 16792 invoked by uid 48); 29 Apr 2009 14:59:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090429145939.16791.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug testsuite/39952] Inadequate gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg02906.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 14:59 ------- Yeah, and that's because otherwise reproduceability would be a nightmare. We even use the same pseudo-random generator on all hosts to have as few differences as possible. It is certainly possibility to add a -sSEED option (and -s meaning generate_srandom call seeing with time_t or something), but it isn't something that should be run by default. If you have sufficient CPU cycles, you can obviously in your testing bump -n from 3000 to 1000000 or something and use -s, after making sure you make a copy of the generated files whenever you notice some failure to be able to reproduce it. Generally, a single line like in struct-layout-1_test.h on which the test failed should be enough to reproduce it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39952