Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check

["Bernhard Reutner-Fischer" <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>]

On 12 September 2014 19:46:33 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Here is my latest version of the patch.
> >
> > With this patch I get identical test_summary output on make -k check
> > (completely serial testing) and make -j48 -k check from toplevel directory.
> >
> > Major changes since last version:
> > 1) I've changed the granularity, now it does O_EXCL|O_CREAT attempt
> >   only every 10th runtest_file_p invocation
>
> So, Iâd love to see the numbers for 5 and 20 to double check that 10 is the 
> right number to pick.  This sort of refinement is trivial post checkin.
>
> > 3) various other *.exp fails didn't use runtest_file_p, especially the
> >   gcc.misc-tests/ ones, tweaked those like struct-layout-1.exp or
> >   plugin.exp so that only the first runtest instance to encounter those
> >   runs all of the *.exp file serially
>
> > Regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> Ok.  Please be around after you apply it to try and sort out any major fallout.

Usage of $(or) and $(and) will bump GNU make prerequisite version from our 
current 3.80 to at least 3.82 (IIRC).

PS: for the numbers I had used addsuffix  rather than patsubst in the hopes 
that it avoids lots of regexp calls. Very minor not though.

Cheers,
> If someone can check their target post checkin (or help out pre-checkin) 
> and report back, that would be nice.  Times before and post checkin with 
> core count -j setting would be nice.
>
> I wonder if the libstdc++ problems can be sorted out merely by finding a 
> way to sort them so the expensive ones come early (regexp -> 0regexp for 
> example).  Or, instead of sorting them by name, sort them by some other key 
> (md5 per line).  The idea then would be that the chance of all regexp tests 
> being in one group is 0.



Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com