Ping on this - Dan, any chance you could take a look here?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:48 PM Arthur Eubanks <aeuba...@google.com> wrote: > > Another case: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43/builds/810 > shtest-timeout.py seems to be fairly flaky on the clang-cmake-aarch64-quick > bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43, I get notifications from it > fairly often > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Looks like there might still be some issues with the timeout tests? >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/126/builds/226/steps/13/logs/FAIL__lit___shtest-timeout_py >> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 2:44 PM Dan Liew <d...@su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> > > One thing we could do to remove fragility in the test is to remove the >>> > > running of `short.py` in the test. This is only invoked to check that >>> > > it's possible for a command to run to completion in the presence of a >>> > > fixed timeout. If we can live without testing that part (i.e. we only >>> > > test that a timeout can be reached) then the test should be much more >>> > > robust. >>> > >>> > If you're on board with that, it's a tradeoff I think is probably >>> > reasonable from a test coverage V reliability V development time >>> > tradeoff. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay here. I've put a patch up for review that goes >>> with this approach: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88807 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
