[Insight-developers] itkTimeStamp Test Failures Mistery

[Luis Ibanez]

Tom,

Let's do that then.

Would you like to modify the test ?

It will be nice to put this one down,
since we have 8 days left for the
release deadline.


Please let us know.


     Thanks


        Luis


-------------------------
Tom Vercauteren wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> I also feel that adding some documentation in the TimeStamp about this
> behavior and modifying the TimeStampTest should be enough.
> 
> Tom
> 
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 18:21, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
> 
>>Brad
>>
>>That modification sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>>Unless somebody can come up with a typical use that actually
>>require TimeStamp::Modified() to be thread-safe...
>>
>>
>>  Luis
>>
>>
>>--------------------------
>>Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
>>
>>>So should we change the test so that each thread has it own itkTimeStamp
>>>class. There by just testing that the class is reentrant. And then specify
>>>in the TimeStamp documentation class that it is only re-entrant.
>>>I think that the test should then pass.  And it'll test the needed
>>>functionality. Anyone object?
>>>
>>>Brad
>>>
>>
>