From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-64817-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2899 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2009 06:53:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 2884 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2009 06:53:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:53:20 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KLU00D0033RO400@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:53:17 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.213.34]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KLU0054934S0540@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:53:17 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:53:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: parallelize "make check"
In-reply-to: <m3tz24f4iw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83tz23zdsz.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <m34ou5ig9e.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <831vp90ztf.fsf@gnu.org> <m3tz24f4iw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00704.txt.bz2

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:21:43 -0600
> 
> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> Eli> It would be good to mention this possibility in README, IMO.
> 
> Please review.

Thanks.  A couple of comments:

 . You mention RUNTESTFLAGS that is not otherwise documented in
   README.  I understand that you mention it (and the solution via
   setting RUNTESTFLAGS) as ``gotcha'' for those who use this variable
   for reasons unrelated to -j.  If so, I would suggest to make it an
   explicit note, something like this (the parens are deliberate):

    (Note that setting `RUNTESTFLAGS' then, by default, the tests will
    be run serially even under -j.  You can override this and force a
    parallel run ...)

 . I think we should say that using -j significantly cuts the time for
   running the test suite.  Otherwise, the reader would not
   necessarily understand why she would like to use -j.