[PATCH] gcc parallel make check
Sat Sep 13 10:58:00 GMT 2014
On 13 September 2014 02:04:51 Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > curious, when I run atomic.exp=stdatom\*.c:
> > gcc.dg/atomic/atomic.exp completed in 30 seconds.
> > atomic.exp=c\*.c takes 522 seconds with 3, 2, 5 and 4 being the worst
> That's the
> @if [ -z "$(filter-out --target_board=%,$(filter-out
> --extra_opts%,$(RUNTESTFLAGS)))" ] \
> && [ "$(filter -j, $(MFLAGS))" = "-j" ]; then \
> i.e. if you specify anything in RUNTESTFLAGS other than --target_board= or
> --extra_opts, it is not parallelized. This was done previously because
> parallelization required setting the flags to something different (manually
> created *.exp list). The first  could
Yes, this is very inconvenient, especially in the light of -v in the
runtestflags which should certainly not prohibit parallel execution.
for how I would fix that.. (findstring empty instead of filter-out).
perhaps be removed now, if one e.g.
> RUNTESTFLAGS=atomic.exp etc. with sufficiently enough tests, parallelization
> will be still worth it. I've been worried about the quick cases where
> parallelization is not beneficial, like make check-gcc \
> RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr60123.c or similar, but one doesn't usually pass -jN
> in that case. So yes, the
> [ -z "$(filter-out --target_board=%,$(filter-out
> --extra_opts%,$(RUNTESTFLAGS)))" ]
> can be dropped (not in libstdc++ though, there are abi.exp and
> prettyprinters.exp still run serially, though even that could be handled the
> struct-layout-1.exp way, of running it by the first instance to encounter
> those with small changes in those *.exp files).
Sent with AquaMail for Android
More information about the Gcc-patches