From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEC81F45F for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 18:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727454AbfEESIq (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 May 2019 14:08:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]:36171 "EHLO mail-ed1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726636AbfEESIq (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 May 2019 14:08:46 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a8so12717131edx.3 for ; Sun, 05 May 2019 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WMJoCdjtBEBL1NChrtGRz1/+RbNSKnHuuxhtLVIEBwo=; b=tx1s2hqnltz7Qj4WhsCu6ihrH9o1oz87o1/sNKMVoF9rM1pPxmFPpbRR3rhpSub24p ij7/eymPf4fP9TT8c2luyBJHntTYORfX7YE3/8Q9e4mijfIVl/y1g3zavwkI53KOIf2G DOkfoYVa8HJrODi/wKWtGGhtdUOj5UW09rOICOV6Xjpa/K1bYdtRmnz96p02bZZFTTWE su51rYMVfEPHcpbSjh5a9tIeBr9TWPCinAnuwizm25VL5kt8VjkR7FvZu8fdjBhxP3ss dHlljZG69/RZ3X8ClpDTcP7iTLoKH5Pp2vupMrKgyIT3XPSvhBuCoMli5+Z/itgipiC4 6uFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WMJoCdjtBEBL1NChrtGRz1/+RbNSKnHuuxhtLVIEBwo=; b=CSMJuOhxfqDta5Y840qGUanUZoBj31gXDsWW43JqlSahxyCJd64towAc0LeZwRClhD To2+AjJQDaqtE7J1PpFtZw0UuhqtT6ytjmchrCTRCHDpFH1vJ/lxu62T2w2v4UxbiJHT PYIZeJrEIvt5XYRHFeJChUFzvzAc7q146+rt4mO45QwsAp6ogP7MvQfKI/ac19mtQp8I uLoYtH3ofHOvkTh1ltfDxbamv39OnZDQL10/JQCpkEo2BfRX4M2U5TkjB1SqJCXts/+x KGAj0ngjoVWl1QNeQj036icltA5aBIUjRXUK5EyOL9gsHkbBzMVHgfbI2JQOqSN8+t52 dmfw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbGLomei1AOiu1iwiS5rbKx2QfMCZ8rP0XqLPPxrCzL8gNszlx XwRyjnr//i3J6zQKJnBti4/ySS7Sx//QwOHObvY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyElYr1+VS01QCqkCIHlkZ/Vpz0DtnsVHgM4qB5UVjsYEA2VQSs/nzKgf+8wG1GgIVk0ZlnO28GaNm7SUNrgz0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:28f:: with SMTP id l15mr21741901edv.242.1557079724346; Sun, 05 May 2019 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190422214901.GA14528@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190425120758.GD8695@szeder.dev> <20190501100108.GA8954@archbookpro.localdomain> <20190502000422.GF14763@szeder.dev> <20190503144211.GH14763@szeder.dev> <20190503174503.GA8242@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: <20190503174503.GA8242@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Jacob Keller Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 11:08:35 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] remove extern from function declarations To: Jeff King Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=C3=A1bor?= , Johannes Schindelin , Denton Liu , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Emily Shaffer , Thomas Gummerer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:09 AM Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +0200, SZEDER G=C3=A1bor wrote: > > > > Since you *could* include it, I now assume that Coccinelle does not n= eed > > > to follow the `#include`s (otherwise, it would have complained about = not > > > finding the `windows.h` header in your setup). > > > > We invoke Coccinelle/spatch with the '--all-includes' option, see the > > SPATCH_FLAGS make variable. And it does indeed include header files: > > I've seen it find something to transform in 'cache.h', and then the > > resulting 'contrib/coccinelle/.cocci.patch' included the > > exact same transformation as many times as the number of files > > including 'cache.h'... which is a lot :) > > I think spatch is smart enough not to hit the same header multiple > times. But the problem is that we invoke it once per file, so it > actually processes cache.h many times. That's slow, but also produces > bogus patches. > > Jacob Keller's patches to collapse this to a single invocation do fix it > (and I've used them selectively in the past rather than cleaning up the > resulting patch manually ;) ). > > Sort of tangential to your point, I guess, but it might be a topic to > revisit. > > -Peff Yea, my patches are much faster. However, they trade off a huge increase in memory consumption, and from what I remember, the failure if you don't have enough RAM was not a good experience. Thanks, Jake