Aha, in that case, it definitely sounds like increasing the timeout is in order. I would still go for something less than 30 minutes, but I don't care about that much. I may just export LLDB_TEST_TIMEOUT locally to lower it if tests taking long to time out start bugging me.
BTW, do you know which test is that? Is it one of the tests I have listed in one of the previous emails? On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 at 14:52, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > > I think we should get some data before pulling numbers out of our > sleeves. > > If we can get some numbers on the slowest machine that we have around, > then > > we should be able to specify the timeout as some multiple of the slowest > > test. For example, for me the slowest test takes around 110 seconds. The > > timeout is 4 minutes (~ 2x) and I don't get tests timing out. How long > does > > the slowest test take for you? If we set the timeout as 3x or 4x that > > number, we should create a sufficiently large buffer and still avoid > > half-hour waits. > > > > The longest test takes over 300 seconds. This is a late 2013 Mac Pro, > so, definitely not the newest machine out there (but also something > fairly high spec). > For the archives, my conf is something like; cmake -GNinja ../llvm && > ninja check-lldb > > Thanks! > > -- > Davide >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
