cocci: run against a generated ALL.cocci

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>