On 04.12.25 18:50, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2025-12-04 11:52:07 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
What do people think about patch 0002, which runs headerscheck and
cpluspluscheck in parallel on ci? It should save several seconds of
wall-clock time for that task, and I don't see any drawbacks, unless you
want to retain the specific previous output format for some reason.
I think the output today is easier to parse, it's more obvious whether the
error is from a cpluspluscheck violation or a headercheck violation. However,
the runtime win seems to more than outweigh that.
From 0a580cb2e58dcc257978d5cc20528f2e4a315880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:21:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2.1 2/3] ci: Run headerscheck and cplusplucheck in parallel
---
.cirrus.tasks.yml | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.cirrus.tasks.yml b/.cirrus.tasks.yml
index 038d043d00e..69224fcfec7 100644
--- a/.cirrus.tasks.yml
+++ b/.cirrus.tasks.yml
@@ -1015,9 +1015,7 @@ task:
--quiet \
CC="ccache gcc" CXX="ccache g++" CLANG="ccache clang"
make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} clean
- time make -s headerscheck EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
- headers_cpluspluscheck_script: |
- time make -s cpluspluscheck EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
+ time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -k -Otarget headerscheck cpluspluscheck
EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
Doesn't really matter, but I'd probably use ${CHECKFLAGS} instead of -Otarget
directly.
I'd add a comment saying that we run both in the same script to increase
parallelism and that we use -k to get the result of both. But again, this is
just a very minor nitpick, and if you prefer not to, I'm fine.
I had forgotten about this one for a bit, but I have committed it now,
with the adjustments that you had suggested.
