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 <[email protected]> > 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
