This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC/CFT] auto-wipe dump files [was: Re: [committed] Fix up bb-slp-31.c testcase]
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Janis Johnson <janis_johnson at mentor dot com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:01:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC/CFT] auto-wipe dump files [was: Re: [committed] Fix up bb-slp-31.c testcase]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131030094133 dot GA22154 at nbbrfq dot cc dot univie dot ac dot at>
On Oct 30, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I've noticed that this testcase doesn't clean up after itself.
> This was nagging me last weekend.. ;)
> What about automating this?
So, the idea sounds very nice.
One thing that I worry about is the testing speed hit for people (test cases) that don't need cleanups. I don't know the speed hit of the code, so, don't know how necessary it is to try and go faster.
I was thinking the presence of a scan-tree-dump, would set a bit that said, do a scan-tree-dump style cleanup.
The common code then does, if cleanups needed, do cleanups
The idea, most test cases don't do this, and don't need the big cleanup routine to fire. A scan-tree-dump would setup a cleanup tree dumps flags, and then in the big cleanup routine, you have:
if (need tree cleanups) do tree cleanups();
if (need rtl cleanups) do rtl cleanups();
this way, we avoid randomly doing cleanups for things we don't need them for, and avoid even asking if we need any cleanups, as we can have a global flag that says if we need any extra, special cleanups.
So, all that would be bad to do, if the speed hit is small… Can you collect with/without numbers and post them? If you can, include user, sys and elapsed. You can run a subset of one testsuite, say, dg.exp, as representative.