| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: headerscheck ccache support |
| Date: | 2025-12-04 10:59:27 |
| Message-ID: | c1e4f972-81e4-4f29-a796-b00c4154be98@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.11.25 14:29, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Another approach I had in mind for some time is to just write out a makefile
>> with the test compile commands, and run that with make -j. Demo patch
>> attached. (I'm not seriously proposing this. For one thing, we probably
>> wouldn't want to introduce a dependency on make. But you could probably
>> write an equivalent ninja.build file.)
>>
>> But this doesn't seem to buy very much. The overhead of the shell script to
>> write out the test files appears to become significant compared the the
>> actual compile commands.
>
> Really? I tried editing the make line to have -j8 (your patch doesn't
> have a -j switch at all there)
Note that the "+" I added to the targets in the top-level GNUmakefile.in
causes the make flags to passed down, so you can run make -jN
headerscheck etc. without having to edit or hardcode the make command
inside the script.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-12-04 11:03:22 | Re: headerscheck ccache support |
| Previous Message | Kirill Reshke | 2025-12-04 10:56:46 | Re: [PATCH] Add enable_copy_program GUC to control COPY PROGRAM |