[llvm-dev] Timeout tests timing out

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Took another wack at it: 4415678718ad471c84f024e20ce864ae1e79348a

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:20 PM Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks at google.com> wrote:

> 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/20201208/b35dc3a1/attachment.html>