Re: headerscheck ccache support

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(at)eisentraut(dot)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.

Greetings,

Andres Freund