Ok, seems fine. No other issues on my side On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:47 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tfiala added inline comments. > > ================ > Comment at: test/CMakeLists.txt:65 > @@ -64,3 +64,3 @@ > ${LLDB_SOURCE_DIR}/test/dotest.py > - "${LLDB_TEST_COMMON_ARGS};${LLDB_TEST_USER_ARGS}" > + "--no-multiprocess;${LLDB_TEST_COMMON_ARGS};${LLDB_TEST_USER_ARGS}" > "Testing LLDB with args: > ${LLDB_TEST_COMMON_ARGS};${LLDB_TEST_USER_ARGS}" > ---------------- > zturner wrote: > > Is this necessary? dosep already takes a -t argument which specifies > the number of threads, and if the number of threads is 1 it disables the > thread pool. Is it possible to delete this option and just pass -t=1 > instead? > Right now there's an implementation difference between the two: > > --no-multiprocess literally switches from using the dosep parallel test > runner logic to using the old dotest.py test runner logic. Specifying > -t/--threads THREADCOUNT where THREADCOUNT is 1 will use the multiprocess > test runner with a single process queue. So, if somebody wanted to have > the extra test subdir filtering of the dosep logic (the test-subdir arg) > but for some reason wanted to debug or otherwise run it serially, they'd be > out of luck if we adopted a -t=1 == --no-multiprocess stance. > > What I'd recommend is we keep the two options for now since there is > behavior we would otherwise lose at the moment. But, when we do the > refactor to test runners, we get rid of all the bits that are special to > the multi test runner (e.g. the test-subdir and the --output-on-success > flags), at which point your idea that "--no-multiprocess is unnecessary" > should be true, and we can remove it then. > > Sound reasonable? > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12587 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits