This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: parallel check output changes?


Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>> make the result of combining separate .sum files the same as the .sum
>> file you'd get for -j1.  As Jakub said upthread, that's a lost cause
>> with the new approach to parallel testing, but I think the comment was
>> valid while matching -j1 was still a goal.
>
> I'm sorry for invalidating those assumptions.  Indeed, before my recent
> changes, all tests for the same testcase name were run serially by the same
> job.  If we wanted to preserve that property, we could e.g. store the
> results of gcc_parallel_test_run_p in some tcl array with testcase as the
> key, and after the
>         if { $gcc_runtest_parallelize_enable == 0 } {
>             return 1
>         }
> test add a test if we've been asked about a particular testcase already,
> just return what we've returned before.  Perhaps accompany that with
> lowering the granularity (e.g. from 10 to 5).

That sounds like it'd help if we have any lingering cases where the
text after the PASS: etc. isn't unique, since otherwise it's probably
unpredictable which one comes first in the combined summary (as it was
when the test order was still keyed only off filename).  OTOH I suppose
we should just fix those tests so that the name is unique.

Also, now that even partial RUNTESTFLAGS-based testuite runs can be
fully parallelised (very nice, thanks), what -j1 did is probably
no longer relevant anyway.

Thanks,
Richard


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]