From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19386 invoked by alias); 20 May 2014 00:47:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19372 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2014 00:47:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 May 2014 00:47:30 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WmYDG-0005Tl-6l from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 19 May 2014 17:47:26 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 19 May 2014 17:47:26 -0700 Received: from localhost (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 20 May 2014 01:47:23 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 00:47:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Doug Evans CC: Joel Brobecker , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] GDB/testsuite: Bump up `match_max' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <87bnutzwbj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140519142324.GB22822@adacore.com> <20140519143702.GC22822@adacore.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 May 2014, Doug Evans wrote: > >> > I wonder whether you timed the test suite? > >> > The expect man page says: > >> > > >> > This may be changed with the function match_max. (Note that excessively > >> > large values can slow down the pattern matcher.) > >> > > >> > If it is notably slower then it would be better to rewrite the macro > >> > tests to avoid this need. > >> > >> Funny you would say that! I was reviewing the patch, and decided to > >> do exactly that. Ran into trouble (fresh install), but almost there... > > > > Here are the results. As I hoped, it doesn't seem to introduce > > any noticeable difference (at -j16 on an 8-thread machine). > > > > Before: 1093.79s user 153.20s system 589% cpu 3:31.68 total > > After: 1097.58s user 155.08s system 589% cpu 3:32.39 total > > fwiw, I did several runs of before/after with the testsuite running > serially and didn't find any statistical difference. > All runs were in the range 14:07s to 14:25s elapsed, and sometimes > with-patch was faster. > Not unexpected I guess - most of the time what's actually in the > buffer is pretty small, much less than the buffer size, so other > factors would (generally) have more of an influence on run time. Have we reached consensus? At this point of discussion I don't have anything to add -- all has been already written AFAICT. Thank you all for verifying the change. Maciej