Can you offer a hint about how you plan to implement this? When you say it we should get the same behavior everywhere, I assume this means Windows too, which currently does not support running with a timeout at all (because timeout / gtimeout aren't present)
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM Todd Fiala via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Over the last two days, I've hit some inconsistencies across platforms > surrounding signal handling and the operation of the timeout/gtimeout > executable mechanism that we use to handle timeouts of tests. The net > result is I still see tests sometimes hang up the test running process, > even though my changes in the last couple days seem to have reduced the > frequency somewhat. > > I'd like to address that once and for all with something that is less > likely to differ across platforms. I have a relatively simple way to do > that within the parallel test runner directly. I'm planning on prototyping > that now, but before I dive too far into that, I wanted to expose the idea > in case somebody had any major concerns with not using timeout/gtimeout on > the systems that had it. > > I expect it to be a relatively small change when I get it up for review. > > The nice thing about going straight-python on it is we should get the same > behavior everywhere, and not depend on signal handling to do it. > > Thoughts? > -- > -Todd > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
