mirror of
https://github.com/git/git.git
synced 2024-06-02 08:16:19 +02:00
d0e624aed7
The preceding commits to make the "coccicheck" target incremental made it slower in some cases. As an optimization let's not have the many=many mapping of <*.cocci>=<*.[ch]>, but instead concat the <*.cocci> into an ALL.cocci, and then run one-to-many ALL.cocci=<*.[ch]>. A "make coccicheck" is now around 2x as fast as it was on "master", and around 1.5x as fast as the preceding change to make the run incremental: $ git hyperfine -L rev origin/master,HEAD~,HEAD -p 'make clean' 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' -r 3 Benchmark 1: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'origin/master Time (mean ± σ): 4.258 s ± 0.015 s [User: 27.432 s, System: 1.532 s] Range (min … max): 4.241 s … 4.268 s 3 runs Benchmark 2: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD~ Time (mean ± σ): 5.365 s ± 0.079 s [User: 36.899 s, System: 1.810 s] Range (min … max): 5.281 s … 5.436 s 3 runs Benchmark 3: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD Time (mean ± σ): 2.725 s ± 0.063 s [User: 14.796 s, System: 0.233 s] Range (min … max): 2.667 s … 2.792 s 3 runs Summary 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD' ran 1.56 ± 0.04 times faster than 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'origin/master' 1.97 ± 0.05 times faster than 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD~' This can be turned off with SPATCH_CONCAT_COCCI, but as the beneficiaries of "SPATCH_CONCAT_COCCI=" would mainly be those developing the *.cocci rules themselves, let's leave this optimization on by default. For more information see my "Optimizing *.cocci rules by concat'ing them" (<220901.8635dbjfko.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>) on the cocci@inria.fr mailing list. This potentially changes the results of our *.cocci rules, but as noted in that discussion it should be safe for our use. We don't name rules, or if we do their names don't conflict across our *.cocci files. To the extent that we'd have any inter-dependencies between rules this doesn't make that worse, as we'd have them now if we ran "make coccicheck", applied the results, and would then have (due to hypothetical interdependencies) suggested changes on the subsequent "make coccicheck". Our "coccicheck-test" target makes use of the ALL.cocci when running tests, e.g. when testing unused.{c,out} we test it against ALL.cocci, not unused.cocci. We thus assert (to the extent that we have test coverage) that this concatenation doesn't change the expected results of running these rules. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| buildsystems | ||
| coccinelle | ||
| completion | ||
| contacts | ||
| credential | ||
| diff-highlight | ||
| emacs | ||
| examples | ||
| fast-import | ||
| git-jump | ||
| git-shell-commands | ||
| hg-to-git | ||
| hooks | ||
| long-running-filter | ||
| mw-to-git | ||
| persistent-https | ||
| remote-helpers | ||
| scalar | ||
| stats | ||
| subtree | ||
| thunderbird-patch-inline | ||
| update-unicode | ||
| vscode | ||
| workdir | ||
| README | ||
| coverage-diff.sh | ||
| git-resurrect.sh | ||
| remotes2config.sh | ||
| rerere-train.sh | ||
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc