My understanding was the other way around. The tests timeout but they shouldn't. However, re-reading the original email I see that my mind inserted a word that isn't there. Renato, just to double check: Is it failing _due_ to timeout? Or failing to timeout?> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Jonathan Roelofs > Sent: 18 December 2014 22:09 > To: Renato Golin > Cc: LLVM Dev > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LIT Verbose > > > > On 12/18/14 2:35 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > > On 18 December 2014 at 21:32, Jonathan Roelofs > > <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > >> I think this will help one facet of your problem: > >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D6584 > > > > I don't think so, because the tests don't time out, it's a buffering issue... > > I gather that the tests don't time out, but you want them to because they're > taking to long, and whatever you're currently using to do that doesn't work. > That patch I mentioned causes tests that take too long to be killed, so I still > think that solves part of your problem. > > OTOH, you observe a buffering issue. Why do you think that gets in the way of > timeouts killing your tests? ISTM that buffering should be orthogonal to > timeouts... What are the buildbots currently using to do timeouts? > > > Jon > > > > > --renato > > > > -- > Jon Roelofs > jonathan at codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On 19 December 2014 at 17:29, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:> My understanding was the other way around. The tests timeout but they shouldn't. However, re-reading the original email I see that my mind inserted a word that isn't there. > Renato, just to double check: Is it failing _due_ to timeout? Or failing to timeout?Each test runs correctly and successfully, but all together take longer to run than the overall timeout. Unlike the make version, ninja doesn't print each test as they run, but after they have all finished, so you only have one output for several minutes "Running tests". The buildmaster kills the slave after a long time without receiving input, but that doesn't mean the slave is locked. It just means that the slave is not sending progress updates as it works through the tests. What I'm trying to enable is ninja to print each test as they run, not all at the end. Though, I'll be out until January without my laptop, so that'll be after the holidays. :) cheers, --renato
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> > On 19 December 2014 at 17:29, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> > wrote: > > My understanding was the other way around. The tests timeout but they > shouldn't. However, re-reading the original email I see that my mind > inserted a word that isn't there. > > Renato, just to double check: Is it failing _due_ to timeout? Or failing > to timeout? > > Each test runs correctly and successfully, but all together take > longer to run than the overall timeout. > > Unlike the make version, ninja doesn't print each test as they run, > but after they have all finished, so you only have one output for > several minutes "Running tests". >A recent change (to lit? to cmake? to ninja?) causes this not to be the case, at least on interactive builds. I actually now get the lit progress bar UI & everything. Piping that output to a file... I get this: Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90.. So maybe that's working too? (though it's not printing out every file, it's true)> > The buildmaster kills the slave after a long time without receiving > input, but that doesn't mean the slave is locked. It just means that > the slave is not sending progress updates as it works through the > tests. > > What I'm trying to enable is ninja to print each test as they run, not > all at the end. > > Though, I'll be out until January without my laptop, so that'll be > after the holidays. :) > > cheers, > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141222/c3c66293/attachment.html>