llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43, I
>>> > get notifications from it fairly often
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Looks like there might still be some issues wi
> > One thing we could do to remove fragility in the test is to remove the
> > running of `short.py` in the test. This is only invoked to check that
> > it's possible for a command to run to completion in the presence of a
> > fixed timeout. If we can live without testing that part (i.e. we only
>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 22:32, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Depending on timing in a test is quite brittle in general: can we mock the
> timeout instead and make this fully deterministic somehow?
>
> The test has this comment:
>
> > FIXME: This test is fragile because it relies on time which can
t). It does have some downsides though
* If any of the lit tests fail we won't run the rest of the tests so
you won't get the results of running the other tests until the lit
tests are fixed.
* When running any of the `check-*` targets (apart from `check-lit`)
you have to wait for the lit
I've done in the past. See
commit 6dfcc78364fa3e8104d6e6634733863eb0bf4be8
Author: Dan Liew
Date: Tue May 22 15:06:29 2018 +
[lit] Try to make `shtest-timeout.py` test more reliable by using a
larger timeout value. This really isn't very good because it will
still be su
