tfiala added a comment. @zturner, at this point you should be able to run this and see no change on Windows (assuming I did the os check correctly). The Windows test runner is set to be the previous multithreading-pool strategy. For everyone else, they'll get the multithreading strategy by default that supports Ctrl-C.
You can also check the threading-pool and the threading strategy to see if you get any speedup on Windows. The only speed difference I saw was that the -pool versions were slower than the non-pool versions, but otherwise no wall-clock difference in the threading vs. multiprocessing versions. I saw a slight (~1.4%) reduction in system time on the threading vs. multiprocessing, but that didn't translate to an overall speedup. Also, it is more difficult to get the Ctrl-C behavior correct in the threading vs. multiprocessing scenario. So unless there was a specific reason to want to use threading over multiprocessing (or the perf difference was measurable on some other OS), I'd stick with multiprocessing-based. On OS X there was at least one test that would hang each run, so I didn't get any kind of real timing numbers there since everything was always maxed out by the hanging test. We'll definitely stick with multiprocessing there until we have some data that suggests a worthy reason for changing. I'd like to get this in as soon as this is working on your end, Zachary, as I have other changes backed up behind it. Thanks! http://reviews.llvm.org/D12651 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
