[llvm-dev] Timeout tests timing out

[Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev]

Looks like it popped up again:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/135/builds/295

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:30 PM Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote:

> Sorry I haven't had the time to dig into the issue but it looks
> someone else already fixed it :)
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 21:00, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This'll hopefully be addressed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D92563
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 6:28 AM Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ping again. We're seeing this on several aarch64 bots, what can we do
> about it?
> >>
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 21:19, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ping on this - Dan, any chance you could take a look here?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:48 PM Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Another case: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43/builds/810
> >>> > shtest-timeout.py seems to be fairly flaky on the
> clang-cmake-aarch64-quick bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43, I
> get notifications from it fairly often
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Looks like there might still be some issues with the timeout tests?
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/126/builds/226/steps/13/logs/FAIL__lit___shtest-timeout_py
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 2:44 PM Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> > > One thing we could do to remove fragility in the test is to
> remove the
> >>> >>> > > running of `short.py` in the test. This is only invoked to
> check that
> >>> >>> > > it's possible for a command to run to completion in the
> presence of a
> >>> >>> > > fixed timeout. If we can live without testing that part (i.e.
> we only
> >>> >>> > > test that a timeout can be reached) then the test should be
> much more
> >>> >>> > > robust.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > If you're on board with that, it's a tradeoff I think is probably
> >>> >>> > reasonable from a test coverage V reliability V development time
> >>> >>> > tradeoff.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Sorry for the delay here. I've put a patch up for review that goes
> >>> >>> with this approach: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88807
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201207/1ddcf1e1/attachment-0001.html>