On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:02:54PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > And if we did cache the results and avoid extra invocations via "make", > > then we'd want all the parallelism to move to there anyway. > > > > Maybe that gives you more food for thought about whether perl's "use > > threads" is worth having. > > I'm not especially happy about the significant overhead of "ithreads"; > on my (old) machine, although it does improve perceived time > significantly, it eats up quite a bit of additional user-time. As > such, I would not be unhappy to see "ithreads" go away, especially > since fast linting on Windows seems unattainable (at least with Perl). > > Overall, I think Ævar's plan to parallelize linting via "make" is > probably the way to go. TBH, I think just running the linter once per test script when the script is run would be sufficient. That is one extra process per script, but they are already shell scripts running a bunch of processes. You get parallelism for free because you're already running the tests in parallel. You lose out on "don't bother linting because the file hasn't changed", but I'm not sure that's really worth the extra complexity overall. -Peff
