On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:17:13PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:47:32PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 07:22:03AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:50:15PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll redirect stderr to stdout by default when parmap support > > > > > > > > is used then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Usually I put them in different files. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can do that as well but I would only want to deal with parmap > > > > > > support > > > > > > case. Any preference? How about .coccicheck.stderr.$PID where PID > > > > > > would > > > > > > be the PID of the shell script? > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the connection with parmap. > > > > > > > > When parmap support is not available the cocciscript will currently > > > > disregard stderr, output is provided as it comes to stdout from each > > > > thread I guess. > > > > > > Deepa's recent patch to coccicheck made apparent that Coccicheck uses > > > --very-quiet, so there is standard error. > > > > OK I'm disegarding the redirect for non-parmap for now but we'd have to > > determine if we want to append or add one per PID... I rather leave that > > stuff as-is and encourage folks to upgrade coccinelle. > > If coccicheck is using --very-quiet, there will not be much stderr of > interest when using parmap either.
OK I don't follow. Does coccinelle only direct error to stderr when --very-quiet is used ? Or does using --very-quiet suppress stderr ? > I'm not sure to understan the issue about appending. Appending what to > what? > While Coccinelle is running, you have a directory with the same > name as your semantic patch (or a directory name that you specify with > --tmp-dir) that has separate files for each core's standard output and > standard error. At the end, when all the code has been treated, > Coccinelle writes the successive stdouts to standard output, and the > sucessive stderrs to standard error. Ah I see. OK yeah never mind about appending. > > > > > Originally our use of parmap made output, specia files based on pids. > > > > > Maybe this > > > > > is the default for parmap. I found this completely unusable. I > > > > > guess one > > > > > could look at the dates to see which file is the most recent one, but > > > > > it > > > > > seems tedious. If you are putting the standard output in x.out, then > > > > > put > > > > > the standard error in x.err. > > > > > > > > I'll use ${DIR}/coccicheck.$$.err for stderr. > > > > > > What is ${DIR}? and what is $$? > > > > When you run scripts/coccicheck we take the absolute directory > > of it and then go down one level of directory, so in this case it > > would be the base directory of the Linux kernel. > > > > $$ is the PID of the bash script. > > OK. I still don't find PIDs useful, but I guess if we are talking about > the entire output of coccicheck, there is not much else to do. Normally, > I don't want these files accumulating, and just write over the old ones. Which is why I would much prefer to instead just redirect in coccicheck case stderr to stdout from coccinelle. Is that preferred? Luis