From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21775 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2012 02:50:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21738 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2012 02:50:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:50:13 +0000 From: "howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug boehm-gc/48299] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: boehm-gc.c/thread_leak_test.c Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:57:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: boehm-gc X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-02/txt/msg02387.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299 Jack Howarth changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |howarth at nitro dot | |med.uc.edu --- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2012-02-24 02:49:28 UTC --- If boehm-gc.c/thread_leak_test.c wasn't tested before r171514 (and thus isn't a regression), shouldn't we at least put a timeout on that test so it doesn't stall the test suite?