On 2024-04-16, Chris Lamb wrote: > However, I think this first iteration of --hard-timeout time has a few > things that would need ironing out first, and potentially make it not > worth implementing: > > (1) You suggest it should start again with "--max-container-depth 3", > but it would surely need some syntax (or another option?) to control > that "3" (but for the second time only).
What about going the other direction ... starting with a very small value for max-container-depth, and incrementally increasing it, generating a report (or at least storing sufficient data to generate one) in between each increment, so you always get some information, but essentially incrementally increase the resolution? Or would that approach just be too inefficient? > (2) In fact, its easy to imagine that one would want to restart with > other restrictions as well: not just --max-container-depth. For > instance, excluding external commands like readelf and objdump that > you know to be slow. Ah, yes, knowing the common time sinks would be tremendously helpful! live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
