On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 9:20 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21 2022, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > Oh, I didn't at all mean that `make` parallelism would be helpful on > > Windows; I can't imagine that it ever would be (though I could once > > again be wrong). What I meant was that `make` parallelism would be a > > nice improvement and simplification (of sorts), in general, > > considering that I've given up hope of ever seeing linting be speedy > > on Windows. > > But just ditching the "ithreads" commit from chainlint.pl should make it > much faster, as sequentially parsing all the files isn't that slow, and > as that won't use threads should be much faster then. On my (old) machine (with spinning hard drive), `make test-chainlint` with "ithreads" and warm filesystem cache takes about 3.8 seconds walltime. Without "ithreads", it takes about 11.3 seconds. So, the improvement in perceived time is significant. As such, I'm somewhat hesitant to see "ithreads" dropped from chainlint.pl before `make` parallelism is implemented. (I can easily see "drop ithreads" as the final patch of a series which adds `make` parallelism.) But perhaps I'm focussing too much on my own experience with my old machine. Maybe linting without "ithreads" and without `make` parallelism would be "fast enough" for developers using beefier modern machines... (genuine question/thought since I don't have access to any beefy modern hardware).
