Nathan Daly

👋 just wanna say, love your github name, @persinammon! 😁 Welcome to the project 😊 -------- +1 to this request though. We want to set a blanket flag to make...

> Not sure if hardcoding `-O0` would be preferable... I'm open to suggestions! It seems reasonable to me that PackageCompiler should just hardcode `-O0` during the first pass over the...

> I guess some precompilation workloads are not particularly light computationally and could take longer without optimizations... But yeah maybe `-O0` should be the default 👍 ah true, good point....

Are the tests on Nightly unrelated?

🤔 i'm not sure why the test's worker processes should even have to be doing any package compilation in parallel, since from what I understand, Pkg runs `Pkg.precompile()` before starting...

our tests are running with multiple distributed worker processes, so a race seems likely, indeed. How can we help with debugging the possible pkg bug?

Thanks, great suggestion. We're seeing messages like these, which imply to us that somehow the `Pkg.precompile()` step run by `Pkg.test()` isn't doing precompilation with the expected correct flags for `--code-coverage`:...

This is how we're invoking the tests: ```julia @time Pkg.test("RAICode"; julia_args=[Base.julia_cmd().exec[2:end]..., "-p", "$(nworkers)", "--eval", code]) ``` from a julia process started as: ``` julia -O0 ./test.jl ```

Yeah, agreed. But doesn't `Pkg.test()` also do its own precompile step that should force check-bounds=1, here?: https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/blob/30cc570a0608b2e010d11b483a06e2bf5d3aaa98/src/Operations.jl#L1619-L1630 called from: https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/blob/30cc570a0608b2e010d11b483a06e2bf5d3aaa98/src/Operations.jl#L1607

I didn't say it above, but we're seeing those messages **over and over** in our log; so somehow even after it rejects the cached .ji file, it tries to build...