This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: VandeVondele Joost <joost dot vandevondele at mat dot ethz dot ch>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:21:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.fortran, gmane.comp.gcc.devel, gmane.comp.gcc.patches, gmane.comp.gcc.libstdc++.devel
- References: <1410381512 dot 28338 dot 9 dot camel at surprise> <20140910210822 dot GK17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140910212334 dot GL17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911075123 dot GN17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911080640 dot GP17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911145300 dot GR17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <908103EDB4893A42920B21D3568BFD93150F876D at MBX23 dot d dot ethz dot ch> <908103EDB4893A42920B21D3568BFD93150FE8D2 at MBX13 dot d dot ethz dot ch> <20140912163241 dot GC17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <305370A6-ACBC-4DD4-AF96-32B3503F3388 at comcast dot net> <20140913000430 dot GH17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 09/12/2014 08:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I've been worried about the quick cases where
parallelization is not beneficial, like make check-gcc \
RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr60123.c or similar, but one doesn't usually pass -jN
in that case.
I have -jN in my $MAKEFLAGS, so I've been running into this with my rgt
shell function:
rgt ()
{
( cd ~/m/$CANON/gcc/gcc;
make check-c++ ${1:+RUNTESTFLAGS="$*"} )
}
If I say 'rgt dg.exp=var-templ1.C' the actual test results are lost in
the explosion of shell verbosity. Could we add some '@'s to more of the
rules, perhaps?
Jason