This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: libc-time-clock test doesn't seem to be written correctly??
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- To: Brij Bihari Pandey <fuzzhead012 at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:39:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] libc-time-clock test doesn't seem to be written correctly??
- References: <20030609130644.87414.qmail@web21010.mail.yahoo.com>
Brij Bihari Pandey wrote:
Hi,
I have few doubts about
packages/language/c/libc/time/current/tests/clock.c Doesn't look like
that this test will function correctly (as desired by test writers).
- It is quite possible that clock_loop returns "0", as the code there
breaks out in the first iteration of for-loop and it happens more or
less consistently in all the calls to clock_loop. In this case, the
mean value in main will turn out to be zero causing division-by-zero in
err calculation.
It's true that there does seem to be an assumption there, although that
assumption has been right before because each call to clock_loop will
follow the previous one faster than clock() will increment on virtually
all processors. I'll fix it with:
// use mean+1 as divisor to avoid div-by-zero
err = (100 * my_abs(ctrs[i]-mean)) / (mean+1);
Another related thought - shouldn't the analysis of going through valid
results and comparing against average -- be done using floating point
arithmetic for mean/err computation and comparision?
Why bother?
- Should test fail on first err value, that is not within TOLERANCE? It
may be better if failure-tolerance (another parameter) is taken on
number-of-samples not within TOLERANCE limit, to decide the
test-failure.
If the system disappears into the middle of nowhere for a long time before
coming back even once, then something needs investigating. It may be
alright, but that's not up to this test to know.
What I gather from the comments in the test, that it tests -
- if clock is working or not,
- if it is stable (PASS message) or not.
Am I right in my understading the purpose of this test?
Yes.
Though I don't quite get - - What is meant by stability of clock? - In
what way the nature of test ensures it is testing stability of clock?
Roughly equal period between clock increments.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss