Hi Ying, check the patch I just posted, I think it fixes it. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:51 PM Ying Chen <chy...@google.com> wrote:
> chying added a comment. > > Sorry, coming late to this thread. > This change works ok on linux and darwin systems. > > But it has some problem on Windows, the main code has to be protected with > the following statement on Windows, > if __name__ == '__main__': > Otherwise it creates subprocesses recursively. > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12587#239644, @tfiala wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12587#239625, @chying wrote: > > > > > Sorry, coming late to this thread. > > > This change works ok on linux and darwin systems. > > > > > > Hi @chying, > > > > > But it has some problem on Windows, the main code has to be protected > with the following statement on Windows, > > > > > if __name__ == '__main__': > > > > > Otherwise it creates subprocesses recursively. > > > > > > Can you tell me more about this? How are you calling it? Which one > (dotest.py or dosep.py) is going recursively out of control? On what kind > of machine? Did you used to run it with dosep,py or dotest.py? If you > used to use dotest.py, you'll start seeing a bunch of dotest.py test > runners (one per core, which you can control with the -t or --threads > option). If you're on a machine that has 48 cores, you'll get 48 dotest > runner processes. Are you sure that it is not running? > > > I call dotest directly, like "python.exe dotest.py --executable ..." on a > Windows 7 machine. > I set LLDB_TEST_THREADS=8, and see 8 test runners from task manager. That > has no problem. > But it seems each thread keeps calling dotest->dosep->dotest-... > recursively. > > > If it is not running and is truly recursing out of control, can you > capture the command line args for several of the processes? All of the > inferior dotest.py worker bees should have been kicked off with the > --inferior flag added. If *not*, then something sounds like it is going > wrong. > > > > > > Do you have a patch that fixes this? (I'm not sure exactly which part > you're wanting to protect). > > > I don't have a patch yet, because the functions in dotest.py is pretty > scattered. > I'm not sure which part to guard yet. I'm still looking at it. > > > One more question - I recall sometimes having .pyc files not get cleared > out properly, and get used even when they're stale on some platforms in the > past. Is it possible you have stale .pyc files that possibly don't have > the updated code (i.e. .py file is fresh, but .pyc file is getting used > accidentally)? Easiest way to rule that out is to blow away the .pyc files > in the directory. Having stale files in this case could go really badly. > > > Yes, I had a clean run. > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12587 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
