Thanks for the clarification, Andreas. Yes, it's a good step; thanks for
doing it.
Steve
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev <
gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> The 00.hello tests are below 10 seconds and have too high SNR to even make
> it into my report :-)
Hi Steve,
The 00.hello tests are below 10 seconds and have too high SNR to even make
it into my report :-), so yes you are right in that they are included in
the ‘short’ regressions.
This is definitely an intermediate step, but in any case we benefit from
having a more sensible classification.
T
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm not too particular about the naming.
I am surprised that even the o3 "hello world" tests wouldn't be < 180
seconds though. It would be nice to have the quick/short/zippy/whatever
test category exercise o3 at least a little bit.
As far as composing regression paths,
I mean quick, medium, slow, not quick, medium, fast.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
> I complained about those names a long time ago, and I still think they
> aren't very good. "quick" and "long" aren't really on the same scale, to
> start with. Something can be quick (a rat
I complained about those names a long time ago, and I still think they
aren't very good. "quick" and "long" aren't really on the same scale, to
start with. Something can be quick (a rate) and still take a long time.
Medium is very generic and so isn't on a different axis, but since the
others aren'
Hi all,
At the moment we run roughly 120 regressions, and divide them into quick and
long somewhat arbitrarily. Anyone doing active development and using quick as
their “quick” way of checking that nothing is broken has to wait more than 10
minutes for some of these regressions to finish, which