On 04.12.25 18:50, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-12-04 11:52:07 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> What do people think about patch 0002, which runs headerscheck and
>> cpluspluscheck in parallel on ci? It should save several seconds of
>> wall-clock time for that task, and I don't see any drawbacks, unless you
>> want to retain the specific previous output format for some reason.
>
> I think the output today is easier to parse, it's more obvious whether the
> error is from a cpluspluscheck violation or a headercheck violation. However,
> the runtime win seems to more than outweigh that.
>
>
>> From 0a580cb2e58dcc257978d5cc20528f2e4a315880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
>> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:21:31 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH v2.1 2/3] ci: Run headerscheck and cplusplucheck in parallel
>>
>> ---
>> .cirrus.tasks.yml | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/.cirrus.tasks.yml b/.cirrus.tasks.yml
>> index 038d043d00e..69224fcfec7 100644
>> --- a/.cirrus.tasks.yml
>> +++ b/.cirrus.tasks.yml
>> @@ -1015,9 +1015,7 @@ task:
>> --quiet \
>> CC="ccache gcc" CXX="ccache g++" CLANG="ccache clang"
>> make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} clean
>> - time make -s headerscheck EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
>> - headers_cpluspluscheck_script: |
>> - time make -s cpluspluscheck EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
>> + time make -s -j${BUILD_JOBS} -k -Otarget headerscheck cpluspluscheck EXTRAFLAGS='-fmax-errors=10'
>
> Doesn't really matter, but I'd probably use ${CHECKFLAGS} instead of -Otarget
> directly.
>
> I'd add a comment saying that we run both in the same script to increase
> parallelism and that we use -k to get the result of both. But again, this is
> just a very minor nitpick, and if you prefer not to, I'm fine.
I had forgotten about this one for a bit, but I have committed it now,
with the adjustments that you had suggested.
