On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 08:18:33PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 12.08.20 um 19:08 schrieb Jeff King: > > Yeah, I've had various issues with the packaging. For a long time they > > had 1.0.7 in experimental, but with no python support. I wonder if it's > > worth starting to use python scriptlets in our coccinelle rules, as > > described in 4d168e742a (coccinelle: use <...> for function exclusion, > > 2018-08-28). They're faster and IMHO easier to understand. > > The idea to use Python as a faster alternative to anything makes me > a bit uneasy. That can't be right. ;-) Well, when you're comparing it to some exponential algorithm with the other technique, even a scripted language can do well. :) I definitely remember getting big speedups back at the time of that commit. But applying the patch below, building object_id.cocci.patch actually gets a few seconds slower. So maybe something changed between the various coccinelle versions. At any rate, it doesn't seem worth pursuing further. > > Of course I tried it out and got some inscrutable errors: > > > > SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci > > init_defs_builtins: /usr/bin/../lib/coccinelle/standard.h > > Python path configuration: > > PYTHONHOME = '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/..' > > This looks bogus. Can you try to unset this environment variable? > Or set it to "/usr"? It's not set in my environment. However, I was able to solve it by fiddling with my system python packages (I'm not sure of the exact cause; it was a case of corrected-while-testing). -Peff
