On 2015-10-04 10:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
build these by default if the user has opted in to running
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
>> build these by default if the user has opted in to running the
>> relevant tests.
>>
>> I agree
ed solution is to build them on
> > demand, when tests are executed (unless a build option says to build them
> > like today).
> >
> > I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that cares
> about
> > them the most) would be generally opposed
Le 02/10/2015 07:10, Gregory Szorc a écrit :
> Currently, the Firefox build system builds C++ tests by default. This adds
> extra time to builds for something that a significant chunk of developers
> don't care about because they don't run them.
>
> Is disabling building C++ t
> > automation, of course). A more involved solution is to build them on
>> > demand, when tests are executed (unless a build option says to build them
>> > like today).
>> >
>> > I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that
>> >
solution is to build them on
>> > demand, when tests are executed (unless a build option says to build them
>> > like today).
>> >
>> > I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that cares
>> about
>> > them the most) would be genera
build
> them
> >> > like today).
> >> >
> >> > I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that
> >> > cares about them the most) would be generally opposed to disabling
> >> > building C++ tests by default. If not, we
On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
build these by default if the user has opted in to running the
relevant tests.
I agree with Gregory. I really don't see much value in building these
binaries by default. For the people
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> How much time does it save?
>
On my MBP, removing all CPP_UNIT_TESTS from moz.builds (which also stops
the production of a few static libraries):
-141s CPU time (6831s total, so 2%)
-16s wall time
`mach build binaries`
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
>> build these by default if the user has opted in to running the
>> relevant tests.
>>
>> I agree
Cool - thanks for checking Greg!
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bobby Holley
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-10-02
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:01:45AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Because the win is small, it shouldn't be a priority, but requiring
> > something like --enable-cpp-tests should be ok to do (and of course
> > automation would do that) if/when someone finds time.
With the way the build system
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
>>> build these
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:01:45AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > Because the win is small, it shouldn't be a priority, but requiring
> > > something like --enable-cpp-tests should be ok to do (and of course
> > >
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015, at 04:40 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-10-02 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> >> It might still mean that we can save time on tryserver if we only
> >> build these by default if the
be generally opposed to disabling building C++ tests
by default. If not, we can go with an easy solution (and require people who
care to add a mozconfig entry). If so, we go with the harder solution.
Is disabling building C++ tests by default a reasonable change
s a build option says to build them
> like today).
>
> I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that cares about
> them the most) would be generally opposed to disabling building C++ tests
> by default. If not, we can go with an easy solution (and require people wh
today).
>
> I was curious if Gecko developers (the audience I perceive that cares about
> them the most) would be generally opposed to disabling building C++ tests
> by default. If not, we can go with an easy solution (and require people who
> care to add a mozconfig entry). If so, we go w
18 matches
Mail list logo