[lldb-dev] mind if I try allowing reruns on arm/aarch64?

[Todd Fiala via lldb-dev]

Hi Ying,

I just put this change in that reverted the aarch64 and arm removal from
test-rerun eligibility:

r255935.

I'll watch this builder
<http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-android/> now
and see what happens.  If it hangs on reruns, I'll revert r255935.

Thanks!

-Todd

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent.  I'll try this in the afternoon.  I need to run out now but
> I'll check in what we discussed later on when I get back.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Ying Chen <chying at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you could use android builder to run that experiment.
>> Please watch test 7 of this builder
>> <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-android/> after
>> your change goes in(Another test for aarch64 which was previously timed out
>> has been disabled for offline debugging of other unrelated problems).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ying
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (And, as an aside, I may just nuke the serial test runner anyway, since
>>> we can do it with a multi-worker runner with a single worker just fine, and
>>> reduce the code size --- I really don't see a good reason to keep the
>>> serial test runner strategy anymore except for a purely theoretical sense).
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ying,
>>>>
>>>> I am speculating that the rerun logic issue where we saw the hang may
>>>> be more of a serial test runner issue.  Would you mind if I re-enabled the
>>>> arm/aarch64 inclusion in the rerun logic now that I made a change based on
>>>> this speculation?  It would be a relatively quick way to check if the
>>>> serial test runner is the issue, since now the rerun logic will not use the
>>>> serial test runner but rather the normal parallel runner with a single
>>>> worker (so, the same intent but expressed another way, using the test
>>>> runners we use all the time).  If we still hit the issue, it is unrelated
>>>> to the serial test runner strategy.  If we don't see the issue, then: (1)
>>>> great, we have a solution, and (2) I know I need to look into the serial
>>>> test runner strategy which may need some updates for recent changes.
>>>>
>>>> How does that sound?  If I enable it and it times out, I'll just revert
>>>> the change and we'll go back to normal.  (And I'll know more about the
>>>> issue, albeit with more investigation necessary).  If it works just fine,
>>>> we'll leave it this way (and I'll know I need to look into the serial test
>>>> runner).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>



-- 
-Todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151217/c7f62827/attachment.html>