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 +0000, 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 > > > > machines than I do. ;) > > > > > > > > -Peff > > > > > > It's probably not worth trying to make this more complicated and scale > > > up how many files we do at once based on the amount of available > > > memory on the system... > > > > Yeah, that sounds too complicated. At most I'd give a Makefile knob to > > say "spatch in batches of $(N)". But I'd prefer to avoid even that > > complexity if we can. > > But perhaps one more if-else, e.g.: > > if test -n "$(COCCICHECK_ALL_AT_ONCE)"; then \ > <all at once from Jacob> > else > <old for loop> > fi > > would be an acceptable compromise? Dunno. 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 first place. -Peff
