llvmbot wrote:
<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT--> @llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb Author: Fred Grim (feg208) <details> <summary>Changes</summary> @<!-- -->jimingham I am wondering if you are ok removing this test? It caused failures in some of the build bots because the user time was less than a microsecond. Alternatively we can increase the number of loops or maybe I need some other approach? I had commented it out just to not impact others --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89637.diff 1 Files Affected: - (modified) lldb/unittests/Host/linux/HostTest.cpp (-14) ``````````diff diff --git a/lldb/unittests/Host/linux/HostTest.cpp b/lldb/unittests/Host/linux/HostTest.cpp index 733909902474d7..5599e4349c8291 100644 --- a/lldb/unittests/Host/linux/HostTest.cpp +++ b/lldb/unittests/Host/linux/HostTest.cpp @@ -68,18 +68,4 @@ TEST_F(HostTest, GetProcessInfo) { EXPECT_TRUE(Info.GetArchitecture().IsValid()); EXPECT_EQ(HostInfo::GetArchitecture(HostInfo::eArchKindDefault), Info.GetArchitecture()); - // Test timings - /* - * This is flaky in the buildbots on all archs - ASSERT_TRUE(Host::GetProcessInfo(getpid(), Info)); - ProcessInstanceInfo::timespec user_time = Info.GetUserTime(); - static volatile unsigned u = 0; - for (unsigned i = 0; i < 10'000'000; i++) { - u = i; - } - ASSERT_TRUE(Host::GetProcessInfo(getpid(), Info)); - ProcessInstanceInfo::timespec next_user_time = Info.GetUserTime(); - ASSERT_TRUE(user_time.tv_sec < next_user_time.tv_sec || - user_time.tv_usec < next_user_time.tv_usec); - */ } `````````` </details> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89637 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
