From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59342 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2018 17:06:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 59332 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jan 2018 17:06:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=10,000 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: DJ Delorie To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RISC-V glibc port, v5 In-Reply-To: <20180125043621.19972-1-palmer@dabbelt.com> (message from Palmer Dabbelt on Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:36:04 -0800) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00835.txt.bz2 Palmer Dabbelt writes: > FAIL: malloc/tst-malloc-tcache-leak > timeout (passes on a re-run) This one, at least, creates 10,000 threads to test for a systemic leak. It's no surprise it times out. Setting TIMEOUTFACTOR for RISC-V is a perfectly justified solution for these.