On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:44:41PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > So that's really weird and counter-intuitive, since we should be doing
> > strictly less work. I know that spatch tries to parallelize itself,
> > though from my tests, 1.0.4 does not. I wonder if the version in Travis
> > differs
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:15:42PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:54:13PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > Runtimes tend to fluctuate quite a bit more on Travis CI compared to
> > my machine, but not this much, and it seems to be consistent so far.
> >
> > After
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:54:13PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> Runtimes tend to fluctuate quite a bit more on Travis CI compared to
> my machine, but not this much, and it seems to be consistent so far.
>
> After scripting/querying the Travis CI API a bit, I found that from
> the last 100
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 10:42:57AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> > That's OK, too, assuming people would actually want to use it. I'm also
> > OK shipping this (with the "make -j" fix you suggested) and seeing if
> > anybody actually complains. I assume there are only a handful of people
> >
On 07.10.18 13:36, Beat Bolli wrote:
> On 02.10.18 22:18, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jacob Keller wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jacob Keller
>>>
>>> make coccicheck is used in order to apply coccinelle semantic patches,
>>> and see if any of the transformations found within
On 02.10.18 22:18, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>> From: Jacob Keller
>>
>> make coccicheck is used in order to apply coccinelle semantic patches,
>> and see if any of the transformations found within contrib/coccinelle/
>> can be applied to the
Am 05.10.2018 um 21:00 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:50:50PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:59:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:53:35PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>>>
> Are we OK with saying 1.3-1.8GB is necessary to
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:00 PM Jeff King wrote:
> That's OK, too, assuming people would actually want to use it. I'm also
> OK shipping this (with the "make -j" fix you suggested) and seeing if
> anybody actually complains. I assume there are only a handful of people
> running coccicheck in the
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:02:16PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:39:04PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > > It should still be a net win, since the total CPU seems to drop by a
> > > factor of 3-4.
> >
> > Well, that's true when you have unlimited resources... :) or it's
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:39:04PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > It should still be a net win, since the total CPU seems to drop by a
> > factor of 3-4.
>
> Well, that's true when you have unlimited resources... :) or it's
> true even then, when I have just enough resources, but not much
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:50:50PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:59:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:53:35PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> > > > Are we OK with saying 1.3-1.8GB is necessary to run coccicheck? That
> > > > doesn't feel
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:59:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:53:35PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
> > > Are we OK with saying 1.3-1.8GB is necessary to run coccicheck? That
> > > doesn't feel like an exorbitant request for a developer-only tool these
> > > days, but
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:25:17PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:40:48PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > > Junio, do you want me to update the commit message on my side with the
> > > memory concerns? Or
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:53:35PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > Are we OK with saying 1.3-1.8GB is necessary to run coccicheck? That
> > doesn't feel like an exorbitant request for a developer-only tool these
> > days, but I have noticed some people on the list tend to have lousier
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 9:25 AM
> To: SZEDER Gábor
> Cc: Jacob Keller ; Keller, Jacob E
> ; Git mailing list
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coccicheck: process every source file at once
>
> On
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:40:48PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > Junio, do you want me to update the commit message on my side with the
> > memory concerns? Or could you update it to mention memory as a noted
> > trade off.
>
> We
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> Junio, do you want me to update the commit message on my side with the
> memory concerns? Or could you update it to mention memory as a noted
> trade off.
We have been running 'make -j2 coccicheck' in the static analysis
build job on
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:18 PM Jacob Keller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> > From: Jacob Keller
> >
> > make coccicheck is used in order to apply coccinelle semantic patches,
> > and see if any of the transformations found within contrib/coccinelle/
> > can
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jacob Keller wrote:
>
> From: Jacob Keller
>
> make coccicheck is used in order to apply coccinelle semantic patches,
> and see if any of the transformations found within contrib/coccinelle/
> can be applied to the current code base.
>
> Pass every file to a single
From: Jacob Keller
make coccicheck is used in order to apply coccinelle semantic patches,
and see if any of the transformations found within contrib/coccinelle/
can be applied to the current code base.
Pass every file to a single invocation of spatch, instead of running
spatch once per source
20 matches
Mail list logo
