Hi Greg, On 09/30/2015 05:05 PM, Brad Chamberlain wrote: > Hi Greg -- > >> 1. It seems that start_test -performance ignores program-specific >> options in <file>.compopts and <file>.execopts, although the files >> COMPOPTS and EXECOPTS are used. When not running in performance >> mode, the program-specific files are read. Is this correct/expected? > I think this is currently "expected" (or at least, known) but regrettable > and something we'd like to fix. > > Specifically, for consistency and clarity, I believe that our intention is > to ignore both .compopts/COMPOPTS and .execops/EXECOPTS for performance > testing, but that we haven't taken the time to sort through existing > performance tests to convert them over to this approach (e.g., by creating > PERFCOMPOPTS/PERFEXECOPTS files for them that duplicate the contents of > COMPOPTS/EXECOPTS if that's what should be done). Others should correct > my memory if I've got that wrong. > > Apologies for what's arguably a bad wart that we've learned to live with > (or ignore) and haven't had a chance to fix yet... >
As you may have picked up from Brad's response, since performance testing is generally expected to be on a larger problem size and more optimized, we have a separate way of setting program-specific options: <file>.perfcompopts and <file>.perfexecopts. It is unfortunate that we still use the directory level COMPOPTS and EXECOPTS and something we'd like to move away from. I believe, though, that if there are directory level PERFCOMPOPTS and PERFEXECOPTS files present, the other directory level files will be ignored. I second Brad's response to the prediff question. Lydia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Chapel-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-bugs
