On 24/09/2021 02:16, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24 2021, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>> On 23/09/2021 18:39, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 02:07:16AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We ensure that the recursive dependencies are correct by depending on
>>>>> the *.o file, which in turn will have correct dependencies by either
>>>>> depending on all header files, or under
>>>>> "COMPUTE_HEADER_DEPENDENCIES=yes" the headers it needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that a plain "make sparse" is much slower, as we'll now
>>>>> need to make the *.o files just to create the *.sp files, but
>>>>> incrementally creating the *.sp files is *much* faster and less
>>>>> verbose, it thus becomes viable to run "sparse" along with "all" as
>>>>> e.g. "git rebase --exec 'make all sparse'".
>>>>
>>>> OK. I think this solves the dependency issues sufficiently. It is a
>>>> tradeoff that you must do the normal build in order to do the sparse
>>>> check now. That is certainly fine for my workflow (I am building Git all
>>>> the time, and only occasionally run "make sparse"). I don't know if
>>>> others would like it less (e.g., if Ramsay is frequently running sparse
>>>> checks without having just built).
>>>>
>>>> (I'd say "I do not care that much either way", but then I do not care
>>>> all that much either way about incremental sparse checks either, so I'm
>>>> not sure my opinion really matters).
>>>
>>> My build procedure runs "make sparse" before the primary build,
>>> simply because the former tends to be much faster to fail when there
>>> is an issue in the code. I can understand that depending on .o is a
>>> cheap way to piggyback on the dependencies it has, but my latency
>>> will get much slower if this goes in _and_ I keep trying to pick up
>>> potentially problematic patches from the list.
>>
>>
>> I always run 'make sparse -k >sp-out 2>&1' after having done the main
>> build, so that is not an issue for me. Note that I always send all
>> output from each build step (for master, next and seen) to a series of
>> (branch keyed) files, so that I can easily diff from branch to branch.
>> Also, as above, I use '-k' on the 'sparse' and 'hdr-check' targets to
>> collect all errors/warnings in one go.
>>
>> So, this evening, with the v2 version of Ævar's patch having landed in
>> the 'seen' branch, we see this (abridged) diff between next and seen:
>>
>> $ diff nsp-out ssp-out
>> 77a78
>> > SP hook.c
>> 289a291
>> > SP builtin/hook.c
>> 417a420
>> > SP t/helper/test-reftable.c
>> 449a453,478
>> > SP reftable/basics.c
>> ...
>> > SP reftable/tree_test.c
>> 452a482,483
>> > CC contrib/scalar/scalar.o
>> > SP contrib/scalar/scalar.c
>> $
>>
>> So, this almost looks normal, except for the 'CC' line! Having discovered
>> some leftover cruft from old builds yesterday:
>>
>> $ git ls-files | grep contrib/scalar
>> contrib/scalar/.gitignore
>> contrib/scalar/Makefile
>> contrib/scalar/scalar.c
>> contrib/scalar/scalar.txt
>> contrib/scalar/t/Makefile
>> contrib/scalar/t/t9099-scalar.sh
>> $ ls contrib/scalar
>> Makefile scalar.c scalar.o scalar.sp scalar.txt t/
>> $ rm contrib/scalar/scalar.{o,sp}
>> $ make
>> SUBDIR git-gui
>> SUBDIR gitk-git
>> SUBDIR templates
>> $ make sparse
>> CC contrib/scalar/scalar.o
>> SP contrib/scalar/scalar.c
>> $
>>
>> Hmm, interesting, but not relevant here. So, lets play a bit:
>>
>> $ make sparse
>> $ make git.sp
>> $ make git.sp
>> $ touch git.sp
>> $ make git.sp
>> $ touch git.c
>> $ make git.sp
>> CC git.o
>> SP git.c
>> $ touch git.o
>> $ make git.sp
>> SP git.c
>> $
>>
>> Hmm, so I think it is working as designed. However, I find it to be
>> more than a little irritating (curmudgeon alert!).
>
> Specifically that there's now "SP" lines in the output, that *.sp files
> are created at all, that they're created where they are, or some
> combination of those thigs?
Heh, just ignore me.
Although I haven't done much testing, I believe your patch correctly
implements what you intended.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
