CI seems to have regressed?

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 10/03/2025 11:59 PM, Manu wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 20:36, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole via 
> Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars- 
> d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 10/03/2025 11:11 PM, Manu wrote:
>      > Has anyone poked at this? Are there known inhibitors?
> 
>     A lot of the tests have switches applied to them.
> 
> 
> Yup, I saw that. They need to be batched by switch group I guess...
> 
>     They are not as simple as it initially appears.
> 
>     Also each test may have a main function.
> 
> 
> Obviously that design doesn't scale.
> Maybe put a compiler hack which takes multiple main() functions from 
> separate modules and queues them to run sequentially... that's probably 
> easier than re-engineering thousands of test files?

s/void main()/shared static this()/

A pretty straight forward regex to apply with the help of an IDE like 
IntelliJ.

>     I'm sure there are some low hanging fruit, and a new test runner may be
>     able to take advantage of that. But I suspect that this isn't an
>     easy task.
> 
> 
> This appears to be a whole new test runner already? It doesn't look 
> familiar at all to me since last time I was pushing to DMD. (like ~2020?)

Not that I am aware of.

My general feeling is we need our own runners.

I.e. the GH runners appear to be unreliable when the US is awake, but 
seem to work other times.

One of the unreliability issues I've recently had is related to this 
make file: 
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/6c04f52a39dc498eca1a05f2f9b9837e45cb5e61/druntime/test/shared/Makefile

I suspect the access denied error on 64.obj occurred due to parallelism 
where paths didn't account for it. The dmd testsuite had a similar issue 
that I fixed around a year ago. But I don't know enough about make to 
verify if that is the case here, let alone fix it.