Re: [PATCH] c++/modules testsuite: avoid expensive ggc-min-expand=0

On 4/24/24 05:49, Patrick Palka wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Jason Merrill wrote: On 4/23/24 11:28, Patrick Palka wrote: Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? Is the test being run for multiple standard levels? I'd rather restrict it to one and keep fully testing

Re: [PATCH] c++/modules testsuite: avoid expensive ggc-min-expand=0

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 4/23/24 11:28, Patrick Palka wrote: > > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? > > Is the test being run for multiple standard levels? I'd rather restrict it to > one and keep fully testing GC-safety. Ah yeah, looks like it

Re: [PATCH] c++/modules testsuite: avoid expensive ggc-min-expand=0

On 4/23/24 11:28, Patrick Palka wrote: Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? Is the test being run for multiple standard levels? I'd rather restrict it to one and keep fully testing GC-safety. -- >8 -- The below testcase uses --param=ggc-min-expand=0 which forces a

[PATCH] c++/modules testsuite: avoid expensive ggc-min-expand=0

Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk? -- >8 -- The below testcase uses --param=ggc-min-expand=0 which forces a full GC during every collection point and in turn takes over two minutes to run and ends up being the main bottleneck of the modules.exp testsuite. This patch