[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1606181237220.2079@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:38:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Gilles.Muller@...6.fr,
nicolas.palix@...g.fr, mmarek@...e.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, markivx@...eaurora.org,
stephen.boyd@...aro.org, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
broonie@...nel.org, ming.lei@...onical.com, tiwai@...e.de,
johannes@...solutions.net, chunkeey@...glemail.com,
hauke@...ke-m.de, jwboyer@...oraproject.org,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, jslaby@...e.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] scripts: add glimpse.sh for indexing the kernel
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Overall, idutils seems to be a good choice. As compared to a grep based
> solution, it knows what is code, so it doesn't report on files where the
> words of interest only occur in comments. As compared to glimpse, it
> knows that foo_bar is a single word. Indexing is faster than with
> glimpse, and looking things up in the index is also slightly faster, even
> though Coccinelle needs to make multiple calls because it doesn't support
> complex formulas. It does support regexps, which could perhaps be even
> faster, but since the running time currently is mostly under 1 second and
> often under .1 seconds, it probably doesn't matter.
I'm not suggesting that idutils should be the default. Only that someone
who wants to go to the trouble of indexing could find that idutils is a
good choice.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists