cocci: run against a generated ALL.cocci

The preceding commits to make the "coccicheck" target incremental made it slower in some cases. As an optimization let's not have the many=many mapping of <*.cocci>=<*.[ch]>, but instead concat the <*.cocci> into an ALL.cocci, and then run one-to-many ALL.cocci=<*.[ch]>. A "make coccicheck" is now around 2x as fast as it was on "master", and around 1.5x as fast as the preceding change to make the run incremental: $ git hyperfine -L rev origin/master,HEAD~,HEAD -p 'make clean' 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' -r 3 Benchmark 1: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'origin/master Time (mean ± σ): 4.258 s ± 0.015 s [User: 27.432 s, System: 1.532 s] Range (min … max): 4.241 s … 4.268 s 3 runs Benchmark 2: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD~ Time (mean ± σ): 5.365 s ± 0.079 s [User: 36.899 s, System: 1.810 s] Range (min … max): 5.281 s … 5.436 s 3 runs Benchmark 3: make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD Time (mean ± σ): 2.725 s ± 0.063 s [User: 14.796 s, System: 0.233 s] Range (min … max): 2.667 s … 2.792 s 3 runs Summary 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD' ran 1.56 ± 0.04 times faster than 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'origin/master' 1.97 ± 0.05 times faster than 'make coccicheck SPATCH=spatch COCCI_SOURCES="$(echo $(ls o*.c builtin/h*.c))"' in 'HEAD~' This can be turned off with SPATCH_CONCAT_COCCI, but as the beneficiaries of "SPATCH_CONCAT_COCCI=" would mainly be those developing the *.cocci rules themselves, let's leave this optimization on by default. For more information see my "Optimizing *.cocci rules by concat'ing them" (<220901.8635dbjfko.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>) on the cocci@inria.fr mailing list. This potentially changes the results of our *.cocci rules, but as noted in that discussion it should be safe for our use. We don't name rules, or if we do their names don't conflict across our *.cocci files. To the extent that we'd have any inter-dependencies between rules this doesn't make that worse, as we'd have them now if we ran "make coccicheck", applied the results, and would then have (due to hypothetical interdependencies) suggested changes on the subsequent "make coccicheck". Our "coccicheck-test" target makes use of the ALL.cocci when running tests, e.g. when testing unused.{c,out} we test it against ALL.cocci, not unused.cocci. We thus assert (to the extent that we have test coverage) that this concatenation doesn't change the expected results of running these rules. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>