[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] Documentation for test timeout

[Zachary Turner]

My concern, and the reason I brought it up, is because it seems like
unnecessary complexity which only benefits a handful of people. I don't
like adding complexity that isn't useful for a wide audience.

If this is just for making your own local test suite terminate in a
reasonable amount of time, then you can do that with an external shell
script which you run when you notice it's hung. If the issue is not knowing
it's hung, then we should change the test runner to print its output as the
test suite runs instead of at the end (we should do this anyway actually
because that's very useful).

And in addition to both of those, we really should be either fixing the
tests or disabling them. Now that this timeout is in, i have a feeling that
fixing the hanging tests will be de-prioritized.

Anyway, this patch is going in (or has gone in) for now, but I really don't
want to see this timeout logic get any more complicated in its current form.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:51 AM Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D6669#101732, @chaoren wrote:
>
> > Can dosep supply different arguments to different invocations of dotest?
> >  Otherwise, every test must run with the same time limit under dosep if
> we
> >  supply timeout as an argument.
>
>
> Although we could solve this with some of the suggestions above, I'm not
> sure it's that important as long as the global timeout is long enough to
> accommodate all of the tests and short enough that the wait is reasonable
> if there's a stuck test. 5 minutes seems like it would accomplish that.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D6669
>
> EMAIL PREFERENCES
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20141218/b7dd4e13/attachment.html>