From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555B53858D38 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 23:00:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 555B53858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 555B53858D38 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1704322807; cv=none; b=ncy34ilQo4R4juI+kLcSy5mzIvEDCna0fZ62cmJ32BW1IGvNiNbvBtQP82H+//AgfyXCmcGyQlL2JaBdCSTopYR4EzmLjqdYL6xMwAL7fnrVn7nwhDuFGRyyi4kiFVq+26nLaGkT8kO46m/ZnQphSorgyk1pWHi0IUbRtFF+hF8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1704322807; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8ixTMZdZaX6DRyOPce1WO+1jnTJBV9/a1s0RIogNgBc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=p3FtbfgKSMyC3D3OiBkTSNRh2w4bsfluNWABRE/ubjEDM2lUljPUfHvDEF1mCti8/wqDqb0rDbfVvV0jOlSNEpIU/aRpdadEPyWWNve4lwSZBKtXfz5jVNvlFm7CyIZkQZrVNuepFz0uoec6XHgn4CmY2TWQhjJtUDKUNTWcfOo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7434C15; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:00:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.110.72]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48C283F5A1; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:00:05 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" ,Hans-Peter Nilsson , dejagnu@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , dejagnu@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH DejaGNU/GCC 0/1] Support per-test execution timeout factor References: Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 23:00:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Wed, 3 Jan 2024 16:38:26 +0000 (GMT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >> > The test execution timeout is different from the tool execution timeout >> > where it is GCC execution that is being guarded against taking excessive >> > amount of time on the test host rather than the resulting test case >> > executable run on the target afterwards, as concerned here. GCC already >> > has a `dg-timeout-factor' setting for the tool execution timeout, but has >> > no means to increase the test execution timeout. The GCC side of these >> > changes adds a corresponding `dg-test-timeout-factor' setting. >> >> Hmm. I think it would be more correct to emphasize that the >> existing dg-timeout-factor affects both the tool execution *and* >> the test execution, whereas your new dg-test-timeout-factor only >> affects the test execution. (And still measured on the host.) > > Not really, `dg-timeout-factor' is only applied to tool execution and it > doesn't affect test execution. Timeout value reporting used to be limited > in DejaGNU, but you can enable it easily now by adding the DejaGNU patch > series referred in the cover letter and see that `dg-timeout-factor' is > ignored for test execution. > >> Usually the compilation time is close to 0, so is this based on >> an actual need more than an itchy "wart"? >> >> Or did I miss something? > > Compilation is usually quite fast, but this is not always the case. If > you look at the tests that do use `dg-timeout-factor' in GCC, and some > commits that added the setting, then you ought to find actual use cases. > I saw at least one such a test that takes an awful lot of time here on a > reasonably fast host machine and still passes where GCC has been built > with optimisation enabled, but does time out in the compilation phase if > the compiler has been built at -O0 for debugging purposes. I'd have to > chase it though if you couldn't find it as I haven't written the name > down. Sounds like it could be the infamous gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c :) Richard > So yes, `dg-timeout-factor' does have its use, but it is different from > that of `dg-test-timeout-factor', hence the need for a separate setting. > > Maciej