This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, 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 17:26:04 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <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> <54203E6A dot 7010303 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:21:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> 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?
I've been considering that too, but not sure what info people find valuable
and what they don't.
Jakub