On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:43:04PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > stderr is not being merged to stdout though. By default stderr goes to > /dev/null > and if you want it you specify a DEBUG_FILE. Above it says: 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 DEBUG_FILE is an option for the parmap case, it should be mentioned there too. julia > > What will be deprecated has no clean solution for any of this and its unclear > exactly what happens given separate processes are run in the background > and we just wait. > > Luis >
