The eventual goal is to use more than 1/8 of my CPU when running jit-tests. This is an easy first step, which will probably have a higher impact factor anyway. I also noticed that our conservative_isatty logic was backwards and fixed it.

Comment on attachment 689249 [details] [diff] [review] v0 Review of attachment 689249 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: js/src/jit-test/jit_test.py @@ +283,5 @@ > print result > > def run_tests(tests, test_dir, lib_dir, shell_args): > + pb = NullProgressBar() > + if not OPTIONS.hide_progress and not OPTIONS.show_cmd and ProgressBar.conservative_isatty(): At some point, it'd be nice for the 'not OPTIONS.show_cmd' part to go away. I like to have both the progress bar and the commands (especially if there's a --failed-only option.) But no point in putting lipstick on this pig now. ::: js/src/tests/jstests.py @@ +189,5 @@ > options.show = options.show_cmd or options.show_output > > # Hide the progress bar if it will get in the way of other output. > options.hide_progress = (options.tinderbox or > + not ProgressBar.conservative_isatty() or Man, I thought we fixed that once already.

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4ebcfbe3c2f8 (In reply to Steve Fink [:sfink] from comment #1) > ::: js/src/jit-test/jit_test.py > At some point, it'd be nice for the 'not OPTIONS.show_cmd' part to go away. > I like to have both the progress bar and the commands (especially if there's > a --failed-only option.) I /think/ this also killed off the code I originally copied conservative_isatty from. > But no point in putting lipstick on this pig now. Pretty much exactly my thought exactly. Lets just hack it until it does more-or-less what we need it to do again. > ::: js/src/tests/jstests.py > @@ +189,5 @@ > > options.show = options.show_cmd or options.show_output > > > > # Hide the progress bar if it will get in the way of other output. > > options.hide_progress = (options.tinderbox or > > + not ProgressBar.conservative_isatty() or > > Man, I thought we fixed that once already. I thought so too.