Subject: Re: makefile(.abi) vs. autoconf/automake/libtool/etc.
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Feb 15 2001 - 23:21:58 CST
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> > 7. rebuild speed
> > -----------------
> > (strength) Because this is a diving make system, rebuilds can be localized
> > by diving to the appropriate level of the tree and doing the appropriate
> > make variants (tidy, clean, realclean) there.
> >
> > The scale factors are nice here, because this mirrors and reinforces the
> > modularity of the code. Localized API changes which only affect a small
> > part of the tree can be rebuilt quickly. API changes which affect the
> > entire tree require massive clean rebuilds of the tree (and usually get
> > mentioned as such during commits).
> >
>
> Fundamentally, it works like this: if you change any significant
> header file, you have to rebuild the whole abi tree. If you don't,
> and it segfaults on something, then you rebuild the whole tree just to
> make sure. At least that's how it ends up for me.
>
To me this is a really significant fact especially on my laptop. I'm
hesitant to change header files because of this. It's REALLY bad to have
to do a full recompile on a 266 Mhz laptop because I change a header file.
That's 30 minutes gone.
I'm really looking forward to Sam's automake system to save me these 30
minute stretches.
Martin
<snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 23:25:32 CST