Added --multihreading 4 to ./test.py in CI#60
Merged
dwRchyngqxs merged 3 commits intomainfrom Mar 16, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Compiler benchmark? |
Collaborator
Author
|
Sure, good to merge now? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Our CI jobs (
integration.ymlandvalidate-tests.yml) run onubuntu-latest. According to here, that results in 4-core VMs. Given that we hit the free GitHub Actions limit this year, I have added--multihreading 4to both CI jobs, which should result in ~4x faster CI jobs and ~4x less VM minutes used (=staying well within the "free" limit) if my understanding is correct.Another minor thing, but I reckon we could use a more descriptive name for
integration.ymlwhich was the sole CI before, but now could have a better name - I am talking about changing the file name as well asname: Integration testfield). I have gone with "Compiler validation" for now, but let me know if you have some better suggestions @dwRchyngqxs.