id,summary,reporter,owner,description,type,status,priority,milestone,component,version,severity,resolution,keywords,cc,lang,patch,platform
1670,t/library/lwp.t fails after parallel build,doughera,,"I am getting the following strange failure with t/library/lwp.t, but only if I build with {{{make -j 6}}} (or greater).  The test succeeds if I build with {{{make -j 5}}}.

The failure looks like this:

{{{
1..48
ok 1 - new ['LWP';'UserAgent']
ok 2 - new ['LWP';'Protocol';'file']
ok 3 - isa ['LWP';'Protocol']
ok 4 - new ['LWP';'Protocol';'http']
ok 5 - isa ['LWP';'Protocol']
ok 6 - new ['HTTP';'Request']
ok 7 - isa ['HTTP';'Message']
ok 8 - new ['HTTP';'Response']
ok 9 - isa ['HTTP';'Message']
""load_bytecode"" no file name
current instr.: 'parrot;HTTP;Date;time2str' pc 8 (runtime/parrot/library/HTTP/Message.pir:31)
called from Sub 'parrot;LWP;UserAgent;_new_response' pc 1445 (/dev/shm/parrot/runtime/parrot/library/LWP/UserAgent.pir:528)
called from Sub 'parrot;LWP;UserAgent;send_request' pc 210 (/dev/shm/parrot/runtime/parrot/library/LWP/UserAgent.pir:74)
called from Sub 'parrot;LWP;UserAgent;request' pc 406 (/dev/shm/parrot/runtime/parrot/library/LWP/UserAgent.pir:133)
called from Sub 'test_unknown_protocol' pc 273 (t/library/lwp.t:68)
called from Sub 'main' pc 51 (t/library/lwp.t:27)
}}}

Running the whole thing under strace, the load bytecode is failing because it's calling
{{{
fstat(1275397164, 0x7fffffffd1c0)       = -1 EBADF (Bad file descriptor)
}}}
where it looks like that first argument to fstat() may have come from a previous call to time().

I have been able to reproduce this problem on a quad-core x86  and on a dual-core amd64.  Both were running Debian Linux ""Lenny"" (aka ""stable"").

I have attached the script I used to reproduce the failures, and a tar file showing the different outputs of 
{{{make}}},
{{{ ./parrot t/library/lwp.t}}}, and
{{{ strace ./parrot t/library/lwp.t}}}.

I vaguely suspect that the recent shuffling of some ops out of core means that some library wasn't available when it was needed, though why that didn't result in a build failure is a mystery to me.

This particular run was at r47170, though I first noticed this problem with r47059, and it could be even older than that.
",bug,closed,normal,,none,2.4.0,medium,fixed,,,,,