From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sqlite3 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 16:50:10 +0200 Message-ID: <83ee5ui1ul.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tufmjyai.fsf@gnus.org> <83bl19zwwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87bl18g7r3.fsf@gnus.org> <83ee64ych1.fsf@gnu.org> <83o853pydo.fsf@gnu.org> <875yrbzjc5.fsf@gnus.org> <8335mfpox7.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmpjo79j.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilvbo2ab.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7avo1l6.fsf@gnu.org> <87o852cl7z.fsf@gnus.org> <83r19ym6vv.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0fqaxy8.fsf@gnus.org> <83o852m661.fsf@gnu.org> <83lf06m1ll.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8z99p1s.fsf@gnus.org> <83wnjolw37.fsf@gnu.org> <871r1waj1d.fsf@gnus.org> <83pmpglpun.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnjn78fm.fsf@gnus.org> <83bl0zjo4b.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtkj8ey3.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13686"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 30 15:52:05 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n2wmi-0003NF-Ne for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:52:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48734 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2wmh-00075J-8g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:52:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57512) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2wlH-0005RA-Gs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:50:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=46108 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2wlH-0003Nn-5W; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:50:35 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=WtM0b11OEyPz2CDovIzmqGwXq3F5/hFavVXocSdLlPM=; b=dKkKw/9EvnIv LoNFDS54H/+gFDWbBbqcHIDTvGXymbJl06sJbr5m62JoQ7uab7StfaOUnYmVB5YHapHu8m9iGmFTG a+Ssa/CCJTHcSrLIgm5ncZ6MbNAVU95OwAW3HI11no41Yi38DhF7O0+TP+4N4NRmaz0gZ68I7hnip QV5YOScFxTYsbHiG+WPC4xlJg63V9Ck0HVtQ6s4CxaaDjUxjXlyvnEMbQRgCx7EvDXYHWIdm/b5GL lmA6W+WvoseMMd+2MQAXEmsmOmLBubS/xp0H+mc5VMoNmwWQMzVaRFoOmnE7nemZgAjOCaef1jPBk 4O5+qDeedJ1XxbqIxLReFw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3086 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2wkn-0008LK-M6; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:50:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87mtkj8ey3.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Wed, 29 Dec 2021 19:05:08 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283657 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 19:05:08 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > The "simple" test still fails sometimes. I even enlarged the > > sleep-for to 10 sec, and it still fails. > > Huh. Then it sounds like our analysis of the problem is wrong, and it's > not failing on the time-less-p thing? No, it was failing there, allright. > Or... can Windows (or our usage of it) cache the modification times > for a long time? I found the problem. In multisession-tests.el we were waiting on the wrong side of call-process: the time stamp of the value-file doesn't change once call-process exits, so waiting there is futile. Waiting _before_ the call, OTOH, is what the doctor ordered, because it makes sure the sub-process updates the value-file after enough time has passed since the previous update to let 1-sec file-times resolution get out of our way. The test runs without any failures now.