This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: comparing parallel test runs
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:19:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: comparing parallel test runs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=polacek at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com D85EC81129
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D85EC81129
- References: <38ff2269-62f3-0b87-dd02-9ff1ba122b15@redhat.com> <aa049651-f45c-31c5-9bb1-2574cf6dc4f1@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:13:40AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/17/2017 04:23 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > Hi folks.
> >
> > I've been having troubles comparing the results of different test runs
> > for quite some time, and have finally decided to whine about it. Perhaps
> > someone can point out to whatever I may be doing wrong.
> >
> > I generally do "make check -k -j60" on two different trees and compare
> Make sure you've got Andi's patch installed and report back. It's
> supposed to help with smaller -j loads, but it's unclear if it's enough
> to address the problems with higher loads like you're using.
I'm still seeing spurious tree-prof failures there (with -j48).
Marek