From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>
To: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>
Cc: <jwakely@redhat.com>, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Splitting up 27_io/basic_istream/ignore/wchar_t/94749.cc (takes too long)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 19:49:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230609174929.9E0D720432@pchp3.se.axis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7F48B21B-835B-4741-9B9E-660A2D302A67@comcast.net> (message from Mike Stump on Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:18:45 -0700)
> From: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:18:45 -0700
> On Jun 9, 2023, at 9:20 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > The test 27_io/basic_istream/ignore/wchar_t/94749.cc takes
> > about 10 minutes to run for cris-elf in the "gdb simulator"
>
> I'd let the libstdc++ people comment on specific things.
> I'll comment on general things. We could let line count
> (or word count or character count) scale the timeout in
> part, we could record times in a db and put an expected
> run time into test cases or in an along side db. We could
> have factors for slow systems, slow simulators. A 5 GHz
> x86_64 will likely be faster that a 40 year old pdp11. We
> can have these scale factors trigger off OS, cpu
> statically, and/or we can do a quick bogomips calculation
> and let that scale it and record that scaling factor in
> the build tree.
Wild plans, but with some points.
Beware that uniform testing IMO weighs in much heavier than
uniform test-time. Like, arm-eabi, rv32-elf and cris-elf,
having common main factors, should test the same code and
the same number of iterations, preferably regardless of
simulator quality. (FWIW, I consider the cris-elf gdb
simulator is *fast* - before 2021 or when built
--disable-sim-hardware.)
> A wealth of possibilities.
And complexity!
> Solutions that require maintenance or test case
> modification are annoying.
Yeah, but that maintenance annoyance unfortunately includes
initial setup. You propose quite a major shift there. It
sounds good, but sorry, but I must settle for just editing
the test-case some way.
brgds, H-P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-09 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-09 16:20 Hans-Peter Nilsson
2023-06-09 17:18 ` Mike Stump
2023-06-09 17:49 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson [this message]
2023-06-09 21:47 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-06-10 18:29 ` Mike Stump
2023-06-12 8:35 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-06-12 22:26 ` Mike Stump
2023-06-09 20:40 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-06-10 4:05 ` [PATCH] (Re: Splitting up 27_io/basic_istream/ignore/wchar_t/94749.cc (takes too long)) Hans-Peter Nilsson
2023-06-10 7:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230609174929.9E0D720432@pchp3.se.axis.com \
--to=hp@axis.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).