On 3 January 2013 16:15, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Part of the issue here is whether or not the Make-based execution is > still maintained/valued. I'm getting the impression that the LNT > execution may be already, or be becoming, the standard way to run the > test suite even when not gathering perf statistics. Michael/Daniel - > is that the case? >The main issue here is that Clang seems not to be choosing link time optimizations by default, while the make-based run calls it explicitly. So it is possible to achieve the same effect (ie. cover LTO) by turning them on on some runs (for all types of tests on all hardware configurations).> If so, should we rip out the direct Make execution, or do something to > otherwise warn/disable it? >I'd strongly recommend that we use only one test style (LNT) everywhere, and that we should test LTO more effectively. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130103/1386cdd8/attachment.html>
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 3 January 2013 16:15, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Part of the issue here is whether or not the Make-based execution is >> still maintained/valued. I'm getting the impression that the LNT >> execution may be already, or be becoming, the standard way to run the >> test suite even when not gathering perf statistics. Michael/Daniel - >> is that the case? > > > The main issue here is that Clang seems not to be choosing link time > optimizations by default, while the make-based run calls it explicitly. So > it is possible to achieve the same effect (ie. cover LTO) by turning them on > on some runs (for all types of tests on all hardware configurations). > > >> >> If so, should we rip out the direct Make execution, or do something to >> otherwise warn/disable it? > > > I'd strongly recommend that we use only one test style (LNT) everywhere,Sure, I understand that's your preference (& mine). I was mostly directing that question at Daniel & Michael to ensure they were on the same page. My only hesitation here is that using LNT as the authoritative runner does have a little more setup overhead for people wishing to run the suite (they need to install some extra stuff).> and > that we should test LTO more effectively.Certainly - I expect Bill (Wendling) is working on that sooner or later, as he seems to be making LTO a priority. - David
On 3 January 2013 16:37, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> My only hesitation here is that using LNT as the authoritative runner >does have a little more setup overhead for people wishing to run the> suite (they need to install some extra stuff). >Yes, there is an issue on shared machines, regarding installing new software (mainly the virtualenv, since lnt itself is local to the sandbox). However, to be fair, I found it way simpler to run the LNT tests than the buildbots. The documentation was much clearer and the process sleeker. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130103/d70a980a/attachment.html>