On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 05:31:36PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
> due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
> a bit by picking a random non-ephemeral port although it doesn't
> totally avoid the problem.
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 10/22/20 7:20 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 21/10/2020 18.31, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
>>> due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
>>> a bit by picking a random non
On 10/22/20 7:20 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 21/10/2020 18.31, Alex Bennée wrote:
Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
a bit by picking a random non-ephemeral port although it doesn't
totally avoid
On 21.10.2020 19:31, Alex Bennée wrote:
Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
a bit by picking a random non-ephemeral port although it doesn't
totally avoid the problem. While we could use a totall
On 21/10/2020 18.31, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
> due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
> a bit by picking a random non-ephemeral port although it doesn't
> totally avoid the problem. While we could use a
Currently the test randomly fails if you are using a shared machine
due to contention on the well known port 1234. We can ameliorate this
a bit by picking a random non-ephemeral port although it doesn't
totally avoid the problem. While we could use a totally unique socket
address for debugging it's
