On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 04:08:50PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Would it work for you to have a check-init target to set up site.exp
> and whatever else might be needed, a check-fini target to wrap up
> the results, and multiple targets that you can invoke separately in
> between those? A top-lev
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:32 +0100, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > I think 'make -j' is the way to go, since it lets the user easily
> > control the amount of parallelism.
>
> As I said before, make -j is a complete non-starter for me, as it restricts
> the paralelism to a single machine and thus would
> I think 'make -j' is the way to go, since it lets the user easily
> control the amount of parallelism.
As I said before, make -j is a complete non-starter for me, as it restricts
the paralelism to a single machine and thus would actually reduce the
parallelism from what I have now with multilibs
> "Ben" == Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Do you think that the current order of .exps should be preserved
Ben> in the resultant .sum and .logs?
I personally don't have a use for this.
I just think that the order ought to be stable across checks of the
same build.
Tom
> Do people still use compare_tests? Talking with Janis, she mentioned that
> it wasn't multilib (ie, RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}')
> compatible, but that test_summary was. It's what I've been using to
> compare two runs.
I have used compare_tests for a long, long time.
Ben
P
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:41 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Yeah, this seems necessary. Ideally the order ought to be stable, too.
>
> Do you think that the current order of .exps should be preserved in the
> resultant .sum and .logs? I guess
> But stability within a given revision of the testsuite I think would be
> almost essential.
Oh, of course :-)
Ben
Ben Elliston wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
Ben> required to make this usable? I assume that the most pressing thing
Ben> would be to have the build system fold the various .log and .sum files
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:44 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
> Ben> required to make this usable? I assume that the most pressing thing
> Ben> would be to have the build system fold the various .log and .sum files
> Ben> together
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:37 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> While waiting on testsuites this week, I finally snapped and spent some
> time looking at how to speed up the testsuite.
> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would be
> required to make this usable? I assume that the
> "Ben" == Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Using this script and some minor gcc/Makefile.in hacks, I ran the entire
Ben> testsuite in 30% of the current time for a parallel-languages make
Ben> check.
Awesome.
Ben> So, I guess my question is: what now? What do people feel would
For arc-elf32, I only want to run C and C++ tests, so the runtime of
fortran tests is irrelevant for this purpose.
On the other hand, I run the tests eight-way multilibbed.
Currently, I run the check-gcc on eight hosts (or execution slots on multicore
servers), and the check-g++ tests on eight othe
While waiting on testsuites this week, I finally snapped and spent some
time looking at how to speed up the testsuite.
I did some experiments and collected data on the normalised runtimes of
each .exp test script. I sorted them in descending order and these are
the top offenders:
13 matches
Mail list logo
