public inbox for gcc-cvs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gcc r11-6686] calibrate intervals to avoid zero in futures poll test
@ 2021-01-14 19:13 Alexandre Oliva
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2021-01-14 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-cvs, libstdc++-cvs
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3651c1b5c9c0960e50f00ca5b59d144b8a586b5d
commit r11-6686-g3651c1b5c9c0960e50f00ca5b59d144b8a586b5d
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Date: Thu Jan 14 16:12:22 2021 -0300
calibrate intervals to avoid zero in futures poll test
We get occasional failures of 30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
on some platforms whose high resolution clock doesn't have such a high
resolution; wait_for_0 ends up as 0, and then some asserts fail as
intervals measured as longer than zero are tested for less than
several times zero.
This patch adds some calibration in the iteration count to set a
measurable base time interval with some additional margin.
for libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
* testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc: Calibrate
iteration count.
Diff:
---
.../testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
index 91f685b172d..133dae15ac4 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
#include <iostream>
#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
-const int iterations = 200;
+int iterations = 200;
using namespace std;
@@ -45,10 +45,41 @@ int main()
promise<int> p;
future<int> f = p.get_future();
+ start_over:
auto start = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
for(int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
f.wait_for(chrono::seconds(0));
auto stop = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
+
+ /* We've run too few iterations for the clock resolution.
+ Attempt to calibrate it. */
+ if (start == stop)
+ {
+ /* Loop until the clock advances, so that start is right after a
+ time increment. */
+ do
+ start = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
+ while (start == stop);
+ int i = 0;
+ /* Now until the clock advances again, so that stop is right
+ after another time increment. */
+ do
+ {
+ f.wait_for(chrono::seconds(0));
+ stop = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
+ i++;
+ }
+ while (start == stop);
+ /* Go for some 10 cycles, but if we're already past that and
+ still get into the calibration loop, double the iteration
+ count and try again. */
+ if (iterations < i * 10)
+ iterations = i * 10;
+ else
+ iterations *= 2;
+ goto start_over;
+ }
+
double wait_for_0 = print("wait_for(0s)", stop - start);
start = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2021-01-14 19:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-14 19:13 [gcc r11-6686] calibrate intervals to avoid zero in futures poll test Alexandre Oliva
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).