On 2025-Nov-28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> But this doesn't seem to buy very much. The overhead of the shell script to
> write out the test files appears to become significant compared the the
> actual compile commands.
If you wanted to save some shell execution time, you could move the `tr`
call
On 2025-Nov-28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is another patch set. I have made some tweaks to address the issue you
> raise, and I took some code and inspiration from Thomas Munro's patch. The
> solution I chose is to create a temporary subdirectory in the build
> directory, and create the tes
On 28.11.25 13:59, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Nov-28, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
I could not apply patches cleanly. Am I missing something?
Yeah, I couldn't get `git am` or `git apply` to accept the patches
either, not even with -3. However, `patch -p1` does accept it. Weird.
I had anoth
On 2025-Nov-28, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I could not apply patches cleanly. Am I missing something?
Yeah, I couldn't get `git am` or `git apply` to accept the patches
either, not even with -3. However, `patch -p1` does accept it. Weird.
I have git 2.47.3 and the patch says 2.52.0. Maybe som
Hi
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 14:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 21.11.25 13:14, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Now ccache works.
> >
> > Sounds reasonable. I notice that you're cleaning this file in a `rm`
> > line in the loop,
> >
> >> @@ -253,10 +249,11 @@ do
> >> if ! $COMPILER $COMPILER_FLA
On 21.11.25 13:14, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
Now ccache works.
Sounds reasonable. I notice that you're cleaning this file in a `rm`
line in the loop,
@@ -253,10 +249,11 @@ do
if ! $COMPILER $COMPILER_FLAGS -I $builddir -I $srcdir \
-I $builddir/src/include -I $srcdir/src/
On 22.11.25 09:54, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:48 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Currently, headerscheck and cpluspluscheck are very slow, and they
defeat use of ccache. I have fixed that, and now they are much faster. :-)
The problem was (I think) that the test files are creat
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:48 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Currently, headerscheck and cpluspluscheck are very slow, and they
> defeat use of ccache. I have fixed that, and now they are much faster. :-)
>
> The problem was (I think) that the test files are created in a
> randomly-named directory
On 2025-Nov-21, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-11-21 13:14:18 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So how bad is the effect of the cache pollution that's now going to
> > occur?
>
> I don't think there's any cache pollution after this change - the
> pollution the comment was referencing was that cca
Hi,
On 2025-11-21 13:14:18 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Nov-21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> ># Verify headerscheck / cpluspluscheck succeed
> >#
> > - # - Don't use ccache, the files are uncacheable, polluting ccache's
> > - # cache
>
> So how bad is the effect of the cache po
Hi,
On 2025-11-21 11:48:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Currently, headerscheck and cpluspluscheck are very slow, and they defeat
> use of ccache. I have fixed that, and now they are much faster. :-)
>
> The problem was (I think) that the test files are created in a
> randomly-named director
On 2025-Nov-21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Currently, headerscheck and cpluspluscheck are very slow, and they defeat
> use of ccache. I have fixed that, and now they are much faster. :-)
Yeah, I had noticed this too. Thanks for fixing it.
> My solution is to create the test files in the build d
12 matches
Mail list logo
