Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] coccicheck: enable parmap support

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:00:53PM +0200, Nicolas Palix (LIG) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le 21/06/16 à 22:43, Julia Lawall a écrit :
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:17:38PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Coccinelle has had parmap support since 1.0.2, this means
> >>>>it supports --jobs, enabling built-in multithreaded functionality,
> >>>>instead of needing one to script it out. Just look for --jobs
> >>>>in the help output to determine if this is supported.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also enable the load balancing to be dynamic, so that if a
> >>>>thread finishes early we keep feeding it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Note: now that we have all things handled for us, redirect stderr to
> >>>>stdout as well to capture any possible errors or warnings issued by
> >>>>coccinelle.
> >>>>
> >>>>If --jobs is not supported we fallback to the old mechanism.
> >>>>This also now accepts DEBUG_FILE= to specify where you want
> >>>>stderr to be redirected to, by default we redirect stderr to
> >>>>/dev/null.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you want to do something different for standard error in the parmap
> >>>and nonparmap case?
> >>
> >>We should just deprecate non-parmap later.
> >
> >that's not really getting at the point.  I like the DEBUG_FILE= solution.
> >I don't like merging stderr and stdout.  So you've put what to my mind is
> >the good solution only in the deprecated case (to my understanding of
> >the commit message).
> 
> I agree. You're not just "enabling parmap support". You're
> also changing how messages to stderr are handled.
> Maybe add the DEBUG_FILE mechanism in a separate patch for both
> modes (parmap and non-parmap).

I'd prefer to just rip out non-parmap support and bump coccinelle
requiremetns to at least 1.0.3, thoughts?

  Luis