-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 396
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make JitBuilder test optional #7097
Make JitBuilder test optional #7097
Conversation
One of the tests (thunk), due to Jenkins not checking for Aarch and MacOSX was failing when built to run on all platforms. This commit moves this sample to optional tests. Signed-off-by: Georgiy Krylov <georgiy.krylov@unb.ca>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm, though i'll do another round of tests for completeness
jenkins build all |
I did a little investigation: apparently JitBuilder doesn't explicitly create method symbols with I'm still not quite sure what's going on with that Windows build, but looks like our Windows build machine may be a bit flakey. I'll try restarting it (again). |
ok, windows build seems flakey and even though it failed building the jitbuilder library (that's job "32"), I don't believe it's due to this change because 1) this PR doesn't have any affect on the building of the library, and 2) all the jitbuilder testing ran just fine (on a different machine) yesterday after merging #7091. There was a PR failure yesterday on Windows for that earlier PR as well at one point. I'm just going to merge. Thanks for your contribution and patience, @georgkrylov . Here's the sum total of the error reported in the PR build:
Windows error code 4 is "too many open files" |
Thank you @mstoodle for your help! |
One of the tests (thunk), due to Jenkins not checking for Aarch64 and MacOSX was failing when built to run on all platforms. This commit moves this sample to the extended tests section.
This Pull Request addresses this comment , and acts as a temporary solution to #7096 , although additional discussion is pending.
@mstoodle , how does this look for a fix?