On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:52:53 +0200 (CEST) Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:04:37 +1100 > > Alexander Klenin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 18:56, Mattias Gaertner > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Perhaps it is obvious to you, but I'd propose to store the source hash > >>>> instead of source itself, > >>>> and include compiler version in said hash. It will not solve unit > >>>> dependency issue, > >>>> but still would be an improvement IMHO. > >>> > >>> If you know a fast check for the compiler version, feel free to > >>> implement it. Otherwise this should be optional. > >>> > >> > >> Is fpc -v too slow? > > > > yes > > > > I guess you mean fpc -iW > > > > It starts two executables, fpc and ppccpu, so it increases > > the time of running a simple program more than twice plus it needs > > more memory. On a normal Linux system this is ok, so it can be done by > > default. > > You must be joking ? A bit. I was testing for reactions. > I don't think this is a good idea. No, not even the IDE uses the above. > One of the things I liked about instantfpc is that it is fast in case the > script already was compiled. :) > If storing the hash to make comparison faster means that you must start > 2 extra executables, it makes the end result slower, which voids the purpose > of the whole hashing operation. (aka it is not very clever) > > You can do the hashing in-memory, but I doubt this will give a noticeable > speedup. > The loading time of an executable dwarfs the comparison operation, especially > for > small scripts. > > And if the purpose is to do dependency checking, I don't see why you would > want this: > > a) if the program has changed, it will be recompiled anyway. > > b) if some of the installed units have actually changed behaviour which you > think will > influence one of your already-compiled scripts, you'll know about it and > can clear > the cache manually once. > in case their behaviour has not changed, there is no point in recompiling > them. > > Very little gain for such an invasive change. > > So: please don't do this change. There is a better way: Store file age of fpc and ppccpu. > What could be useful is a command-line option to clear the cache for you. +1 Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
