http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-19 15:37:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > cxg2001 has passed my last tests without failure. likewise on all my recent tests on both patched & un-patched trees. I find that the acats tests are quite likely to exhibit random fails on D9 and D10 for parallel tests on loaded machines, but I associate that with the test-environment (repeating make check-ada has always come up clean - except for cases with real bugs). Which is different from the libjava/boehm-gc cases which always exhibit the marginal fails even on a single process test cycle. ==== ... the test looks like it is doing some FP work - so not likely to be subject to the two following phenomena: > Is it in the same class as Thread_Sleep_2 in libjava this randomly fails for a known reason (OS bug), we should probably ask for the Java to be changed so that the timeout has a suitable capture range (it doesn't look like the bug will be fixed in D9 or D10). or thread_leak_test.c in > boehm-gc for which I got ~6 failures out of ~90 regtests? this (I think) is related to operating close to the limit of available stack (but that's unconfirmed and on the TODO to investigate). ===== .. although, it's not impossible that either effect could manifest in cxg2001.a, it seems unlikely. I'd be more inclined to blame expect/tcl/dejgnu + system load. Unless you can repeat the failure.
