This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/4] New make target 'check-perf' and new dir gdb.perf
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:34:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] New make target 'check-perf' and new dir gdb.perf
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1381907353-30013-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1381907353-30013-2-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <CADPb22RbqOOnjaNvT30O-ENC1dPEr=TH+Q6sLvN6pjhnsB=OwA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 10/25/2013 04:04 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> We add a new dir gdb.perf in testsuite for all performance tests.
>> However, current 'make check' logic will either run dejagnu in
>> directory testsuite or iterate all gdb.* directories which has *.exp
>> files. Both of them will run tests in gdb.perf. We want to achieve:
>>
>> 1) typical 'make check' should not run performance tests. In each perf
>> test case, GDB_PERFORMANCE is checked. If it doesn't exist, return.
>> 2) run perf tests easily. We add a new makefile target 'check-perf'.
>>
>> V2 is simpler than V1, since we don't have to filter out gdb.perf
>> directory.
>>
>> V3: Move GDB_PERFORMANCE=both appears before RUNTESTFLAGS. It was
>> approved by Doug.
>>
>> gdb:
>>
>> 2013-10-16 Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> * Makefile.in (check-perf): New target.
>>
>> gdb/testsuite:
>>
>> 2013-10-16 Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> * Makefile.in (check-perf): New target.
>> * configure.ac (AC_OUTPUT): Output Makefile in gdb.perf.
>> * configure: Re-generated.
>> * gdb.perf/Makefile.in: New.
>
> No more comments to add here, other than while I think I suggested
> "GDB_PERFORMANCE=both" every time I read it I keep thinking there has
> to be a better word to use here than "both". :-)
> "compile-and-run" is too long.
> I'm not suggesting changing anything, just wondering if anyone else
> has a better word.
"all" as in "do all steps" comes to mind. If we ever add more
steps, then the meaning of "all" won't change. OTOH, "both" would
get outdated and ambiguous then.
But I think my preference would be to hide GDB_PERFORMANCE as an
internal implementation detail, and instead have extra
make targets:
$ make check-perf-compile // just compile
$ make check-perf-run // just run
$ make check-perf // do all steps
Fewer letters to type, even. Sorry if that was suggested
before and I missed it.
(I'd rename GDB_PERFORMANCE to GDB_PERFTEST_MODE, and
GDB_PERFORMANCE_TIMEOUT->GDB_PERFTEST_TIMEOUT while at it.)
--
Pedro Alves