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
AGS $ICU_CFLAGS"
+ COMPILER_FLAGS="$CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS $ICU_CFLAGS $LLVM_CPPFLAGS"
fi
# Create temp directory.
base-commit: 519fa0433b37701b357753a568080bee2c47d238
--
2.52.0
From b8454f9bb493220f011852fc2ac33e7c2cf02627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025
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
that the `trap` line can delete
> > them?
>
> Here is another patch set.
I could not apply patches cleanly. Am I missing something?
$ git am ~/Downloads/v2-0001-headerscheck-ccache-support.patch
Applying: headerscheck ccache support
error: patch failed: src/tools/pginclude/headerscheck:73
error: src/tools/pginclude/headerscheck: patch does not apply
Patch failed at 0001 headerscheck ccache support
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
8454f9bb493220f011852fc2ac33e7c2cf02627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:18:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] headerscheck ccache support
Currently, headerscheck and cpluspluscheck are very slow, and they
defeat use of ccache. This fixes that, and now th
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
Nov 2025 10:53:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] headerscheck ccache support
---
.cirrus.tasks.yml| 5 ++---
src/tools/pginclude/headerscheck | 11 ---
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.cirrus.tasks.yml b/.cirrus.tasks.yml
index 2fe9671f3dc..038
13 matches
Mail list logo
