From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30422 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2009 15:09:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 30414 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2009 15:09:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:09:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5PF9KrV007695; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:09:20 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5PF9Jtb025670; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:09:19 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-18.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.18]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5PF9Iwc017529; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:09:18 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7EF95888077; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:09:17 -0600 (MDT) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: parallelize "make check" References: <20090625145537.GJ7766@adacore.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090625145537.GJ7766@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu\, 25 Jun 2009 07\:55\:37 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> This looks awesome. If I understand your patch correctly, Joel> parallelization is active by default when one does "make -j6 check" Joel> as you split the "check" target into multiple sub targets. Joel> If one does a regular "make check" without the -j, then the sub Joel> targets will simply be run in sequence. Yeah, that's right. Joel> Thanks for doing this. At this rate, I don't think you'll be able Joel> to remain sober at the next GCC Summit :). (Editor's note: Daniel Joel> and now myself promised Tom a drink for various very useful patches Joel> that he wrote). :) Though in this case I took the idea, if not the implementation, from Jakub's similar patch to GCC. Tom