Adrian, can you verify this in the morning? Basically just trying to ensure that ninja check-lldb still works as it did before. There's a chance I'm going to be OOO tomorrow (or at the very best late) due to something unexpected.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:38 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > tfiala added a comment. > > @zturner, at this point you should be able to run this and see no change > on Windows (assuming I did the os check correctly). The Windows test > runner is set to be the previous multithreading-pool strategy. For > everyone else, they'll get the multithreading strategy by default that > supports Ctrl-C. > > You can also check the threading-pool and the threading strategy to see if > you get any speedup on Windows. The only speed difference I saw was that > the -pool versions were slower than the non-pool versions, but otherwise no > wall-clock difference in the threading vs. multiprocessing versions. I saw > a slight (~1.4%) reduction in system time on the threading vs. > multiprocessing, but that didn't translate to an overall speedup. Also, it > is more difficult to get the Ctrl-C behavior correct in the threading vs. > multiprocessing scenario. So unless there was a specific reason to want to > use threading over multiprocessing (or the perf difference was measurable > on some other OS), I'd stick with multiprocessing-based. > > On OS X there was at least one test that would hang each run, so I didn't > get any kind of real timing numbers there since everything was always maxed > out by the hanging test. We'll definitely stick with multiprocessing there > until we have some data that suggests a worthy reason for changing. > > I'd like to get this in as soon as this is working on your end, Zachary, > as I have other changes backed up behind it. > > Thanks! > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12651 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
