From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 0070A3858C30; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:21:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0070A3858C30
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1706599309;
	bh=r/MJGcCTgIB0wUDIZOF9jtgNau2Sh6myf8Z37C7GBpk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=dZqWbNTLqt255XilJQVAg25RY6POSDwj8gQYl64T93I1kNxwLx6EDVgexZmJx5U6N
	 x4h90CYsLFwYV+8psdiZL1Z7YszVoUSZkgA8/SooLSMoOv7rtEjTixq7d+Le6PHKuD
	 8k+YSpnf78fWfuMGOsDTi5qC8J/0wlPJz8HwssRU=
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/31312] attach-many-short-lived-threads gives
 inconsistent results
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:21:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-31312-4717-WMVed6yahk@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-31312-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-31312-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31312

--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Carl E Love from comment #5)
> Created attachment 15344 [details]
> run3, with longer time out.
>=20
> Running the correct test in the correct window....with the patch
>=20
> The test ran fine the first two times then had errors on the third run.
> Fourth run, ran fine.=20=20
> Fifth run, had errors.
>=20
> So the longer timeout might be helping some.

Does increasing the timeout factor further help?

Does increasing the scope of the timeout factor to include the timeout samp=
ling
in "set options" help?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=