Re: new: devel/codechecker static analysis infrastructure built on LLVM

Stuart Henderson wrote (2022-11-09 12:36 WET):
> On 2022/11/09 10:30, Stefan Hagen wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson wrote (2022-11-08 23:48 WET):
> > > On 2022/11/08 22:12, Stefan Hagen wrote:
> > > > Stuart Henderson wrote (2022-11-08 20:37 WET):
> > > > > here are some tweaks, it looks like it will be too much pain to turn
> > > > > it into a proper python.port.mk port but we can get a bit closer and use
> > > > > some more bits of the ports framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wondered if it should it be installed (or aliased) to CodeChecker
> > > > > to match the case of the usage commands etc?
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a hard opinion on this. Moritz preferred it lowercase and
> > > > I think it's more common, too. But the --help output and documentation
> > > > shows CodeChecker.
> > >
> > > I prefer lowercase too, but the mismatch feels a bit wrong :)
> > >
> > > > Attached is a codechecker version that incorporates sthens feedback and
> > > > also reworks the the file handling in a way I like even better.
> > >
> > > That allows files to get copied into WRKDIR which haven't gone through
> > > the usual distinfo hash-checking process, I think it's better to use
> > > the explicit filenames when copying from FULLDISTDIR (even if that
> > > is using a subdirectory)
> > >
> > > > I had to add PARALLEL_MAKE_FLAGS, because with sthens version of
> > > > ALL_TARGET = package package_api, make would try to build both targets
> > > > at the same time, which caused issues here and I had to "make" the port
> > > > twice for it to succeed.
> > >
> > > Do you have MAKE_JOBS set in mk.conf? You'll run into problems with
> > > quite a few ports doing that. (If not, I don't know why it would try to
> > > build in parallel).
> >
> > Indeed I do. And I prefer ports to work with it. So if you don't mind we
> > can keep that line in?
>
> This is not what PARALLEL_MAKE_FLAGS is meant for ..
>
> PARALLEL_MAKE_FLAGS
> Used when DPB_PROPERTIES contains 'parallel'. Flags to pass to
> MAKE_PROGRAM to yield a parallel build. Defaults to
> -j${MAKE_JOBS}. Mostly set to empty by ports that use other
> mechanisms for setting the number of jobs.
>
> And the only ports in the tree which set it, are using it for the intended
> purpose (they are explicitly building parallel and have a different way to
> set it).

I wish the default could be reversed. Treating ports as being able to
build in parallel and indicating in the port if this is not working (+reason).

But this is a discussion for another time.

>
> I'm happy with that.
>

@mbuhl: I think you can import without the PARALLEL_MAKE_FLAGS line.

Best Regards,
Stefan