We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
The test suite was split in #62 into three test groups:
RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v16 --cfg test_v32" cargo_test ${1} RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v64 --cfg test_v128" cargo_test ${1} RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v256 --cfg test_v512" cargo_test ${1}
We should fine tune this, and see if a different split, for example:
RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v16 --cfg test_v32 --cfg test_v64" cargo_test ${1} RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v128 --cfg test_v256" cargo_test ${1} RUSTFLAGS="${ORIGINAL_RUSTFLAGS} --cfg test_v512" cargo_test ${1}
performs faster on travis.
The following things have already been tried:
--cfg
So a split into three commands might be just what we need.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The split has been working properly as is.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
The test suite was split in #62 into three test groups:
We should fine tune this, and see if a different split, for example:
performs faster on travis.
The following things have already been tried:
--cfg
per command into 6 commands) and that performed worse (~55min for the testsuite)So a split into three commands might be just what we need.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: