From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: [Cocci] release: 1.0.2: Software evolution around parallelisation support
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:43:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55DD985C.9080300@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1508261109060.2334@hadrien>
>> Can it be determined from the content of a semantic patch language script
>> if the spawned subprocesses need any more data exchange (with the parent process)
>> besides the usual files like standard output and standard error?
>
> In the short term, there is no improvement planned in this direction.
> It is important that Coccinelle does not know anything about the script code
Thanks for your feedback.
> - we don't want to include parsers for other languages,
I assume that might mean that no such extensions will be added in the near future.
I guess that the scripting interfaces are generally extensible so that
other programming languages can be integrated in principle if someone would be
keen enough to invest further software development efforts.
> and it would further raise the barrier for adding other scripting languages.
The inherent system complexity was already increased just by the added
parallelisation support with the parmap interface.
> If you need initialize and finalize, just use the current parallelism solution.
I am using this approach around the parameters "--index" and "--max" for a while.
I came similar challenges along during the development of my make scripts.
I imagine that these SmPL rules can still be executed by the main process
while the execution of the other rules will be delegated to subprocesses
(or even threads). The scripting environments in the subprocesses would additionally
check then which variables accesses should be transformed into data processing
requests for the main process.
When would you like to pick corresponding software development challenges up
around inter-process communication?
> You will get n results instead of 1 result, but it is better than getting
> 15 000 results, as would happen with parmap.
There are some trade-offs involved. I find it nicer when the Coccinelle software
can be directly reused for more use cases.
Regards,
Markus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-26 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-22 14:09 [Cocci] 1.0.2 Julia Lawall
2015-08-23 17:47 ` [Cocci] release: 1.0.2: Better file selection SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-23 18:16 ` [Cocci] release: 1.0.2: Software evolution around parallelisation support SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-23 19:30 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-23 20:20 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-25 6:42 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-25 6:54 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-25 7:20 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-26 5:50 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-26 9:11 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-26 10:43 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55DD985C.9080300@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox