From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-25 13:54:38
Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> testing.capture-output date_time/testmicrosec_time_clock.run
>>
>> looks like a Boost bug.
>>
>> 2007-Feb-25 10:27:54
>> 2007-Feb-25 10:27:54.730125000
>> Pass :: hours match
>> Pass :: minutes match
>> Pass :: seconds match
>> Pass :: hours date
>> Pass :: last is less
>> 2007-Feb-25 10:27:54
>> 2007-Feb-25 10:27:54.730125000
>> Pass :: hours match
>> Pass :: minutes match
>> Pass :: seconds match
>> Pass :: hours date
>> FAIL :: last is less
>> ...
>
> It's not a bug in the library -- your machine is too fast. The test
> is, as much as anything, a test that the clock on the machine
> provides monotonically increasing values. So there's 3 possible
> solutions. 1) Change the test to use >= in the time comparisons,
So you're telling me there's a bug in the test. That's still "a Boost
bug."
> 2) increase the number of loops between
> measurements, or 3) ignore it.
4) Keep looping and measuring until the value changes or a timeout
expires?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com