On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/06/2014 04:54, Richard Smith wrote: > >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 01/06/2014 04:05, Richard Smith wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> >> Author: alp >> Date: Mon May 5 01:42:07 2014 >> New Revision: 207951 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=207951&view=rev >> Log: >> Update lit.cfg to support the clang-interpreter test from >> r207950 >> >> Performs behind-the-scenes RUN line substitution similarly to >> what's done with >> clang-check and clang-format to ensure the executable is >> found. >> >> Modified: >> cfe/trunk/test/CMakeLists.txt >> cfe/trunk/test/lit.cfg >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CMakeLists.txt >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/ >> CMakeLists.txt?rev=207951&r1=207950&r2=207951&view=diff >> ============================== >> ================================================ >> --- cfe/trunk/test/CMakeLists.txt (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/test/CMakeLists.txt Mon May 5 01:42:07 2014 >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ list(APPEND CLANG_TEST_DEPS >> c-index-test diagtool arcmt-test c-arcmt-test >> clang-check clang-format >> clang-tblgen >> + clang-interpreter >> >> >> I'm all in favor of having buildbots check that the >> clang-interpreter example still works, but is it really >> sufficiently valuable to slow down *all* clang-test builds by >> adding another (slow) link action? Can we make this only run >> on the buildbots by default somehow? >> >> >> They aren't run by default. Perhaps you're passing >> -DCLANG_BUILD_EXAMPLES=1 which causes the examples to get built >> and included in the test set? >> >> >> Nope. >> >> $ grep CLANG_BUILD_EXAMPLES build/CMakeCache.txt >> CLANG_BUILD_EXAMPLES:BOOL=OFF >> >> Note that your change above adds clang-interpreter unconditionally to >> CLANG_TEST_DEPS. >> > > Fixed in r209983! However.. > > > >> I don't think it makes sense to have an additional mode that >> enables the examples but excludes their tests. >> >> I've just timed the test deps build with and without all examples >> on an old laptop and the difference isn't measurable above noise: >> >> With examples and example tests enabled: >> >> touch ../upstream/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp && time ninja >> check-clang-deps >> real 0m1.181s >> user 0m2.648s >> sys 0m1.061s >> >> Without examples or example tests enabled: >> >> touch ../upstream/clang/lib/Basic/Diagnostic.cpp && time ninja >> check-clang-deps >> real 0m1.283s >> user 0m2.637s >> sys 0m1.065s >> >> Beyond that, the complete run time for all the example tests >> combined looks like it weighs in at ~1/20th of a second in a full >> test run. >> >> >> The problem is the link time, not the runtime of the tests. >> > > I don't see how this could have affected link time during development as > the timings above demonstrate. >
Your before and after timings both include linking the binaries, don't they? > (Unless you're using LTO or static builds to develop, I don't know anyone who uses anything *other* than static builds. That's our default and recommended build configuration. > which will have all kinds of overheads -- but why would anyone do that?) > > Alp. > > > > >> Surely all of this is insignificant when there are tests that >> generate large files or sleep for seconds? Also consider using lit >> directly with the --incremental flag. >> >> Alp. >> >> >> >> PrintFunctionNames >> SampleAnalyzerPlugin >> ) >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/lit.cfg >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/lit. >> cfg?rev=207951&r1=207950&r2=207951&view=diff >> ============================== >> ================================================ >> --- cfe/trunk/test/lit.cfg (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/test/lit.cfg Mon May 5 01:42:07 2014 >> @@ -308,6 +308,7 @@ for pattern in [r"\bFileCheck\b", >> r"\bc-index-test\b", >> NoPreHyphenDot + r"\bclang-check\b" + >> NoPostHyphenDot, >> NoPreHyphenDot + r"\bclang-format\b" + >> NoPostHyphenDot, >> + NoPreHyphenDot + r"\bclang-interpreter\b" + >> NoPostHyphenDot, >> # FIXME: Some clang test uses opt? >> NoPreHyphenDot + r"\bopt\b" + >> NoPostHyphenDot, >> # Handle these specially as they are >> strings searched >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> >> >> -- http://www.nuanti.com >> the browser experts >> >> >> > -- > http://www.nuanti.com > the browser experts > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
