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
