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? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # 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: