On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- > In message > <CABoVN9BUXbWO3mN34HXDzN_PdL9v757N=pqn309ab++knhj...@mail.gmail.com>, Dridi > Boukelmoune > writes: >>On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> >>wrote: > >>> If you feel like running a Linux (or other) client, let me know and >>> we can get it set up, I think my current plan is to run this only >>> once per night. >> >>If we come up with something, Travis CI could do that for us for each >>push (so some work needs to be done to match the nightly scheduling). > > Doing it on each push would be silly.
We may be able to run the last build "with coverage enabled" using some API. I don't know, I'd need to look at the docs, but this way it could be done from the Varnish infra. > In particular because it takes one and a half error to run "make > check" with gcov: Gcov isn't parallel-safe, so all the tests has > to run serially, and the implementation sucks, so it takes forever > to update the .g??? files. I thought gcov'ed binaries could run concurrently if the underlying file-system allowed it. I never had any issue with gcov and parallel builds and regardless, if varnishtest spawns a varnishd, won't they compete on coverage collection for libvarnish for instance? > I'll look at it, I hadn't considered multiplatform when I did this. > > The simplest is probably to (ab)use vtest to do this. I don't know about simplest, running nightly builds from a script that runs pseudo-continuously doesn't sound straightforward. Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
