On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I guess just using `(define-logger x11)' and `log-x11-debug' isn't > enough control? > The X11 logger (which could still use define-logger I suppose) is used to print all X ffi calls to standard output, so this requires a (few) level of indirection in each `_fun' definition. I really want to avoid this unnecessary cost when debugging info is not wanted. > The `--mode' argument to `raco setup' is more intended for this > situation, but it requires a little work to create a mode. Carl's > suggestion of PLTCOMPILEDROOTS may be simpler (though, again, it's not > really meant for this job). > It looks like PLTCOMPILEDROOTS does what I want. Thanks Carl for the suggestion. (Btw, the docs are a bit rough on this subject, but your email of Sept. 11 on the dev list gives extensive information. It would probably be a good idea to at least link to it somehow or integrate it in the docs maybe. The email: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2012-September/010386.html ) > I can see how `raco setup -c' is an even simpler solution. The problem > in `raco setup -c' is parsing the command line to decide whether to > bootstrap `raco setup' itself from source --- and that decision has to > be made before loading the command-line parser that is part of `raco > setup'. There's a little conservative parser that triggers bootstrap > mode is it detects anything that looks like `-c'. Maybe the solution is > to have a different flag that isn't treated specially, and so it works > only on collections that aren't used to implement `raco setup'. > That could probably be useful in general, but now it's less necessary to me. Thanks, Laurent > > At Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:34:40 +0100, Laurent wrote: > > Because x11-racket compilation depends on an environment variable to > decide > > if it should compile with debug info or not. > > So if I want to recompile with a different debug option without modifying > > the source files it seems I need to remove the `compiled' directories, > > right? > > It seems that `raco setup' does not recompile if the source have not > > changed (based on a hash I presume, since touching the files does not > force > > recompilation either). > > The `--force' option does not do what I want either it seems. > > > > Or maybe there is a better way to do that? > > > > Laurent > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > wrote: > > > > > `raco setup -c' is intended to reset a whole installation, and so it > > > doesn't adapt well to having a collection specified. > > > > > > Can you explain more why you need `raco setup -c my-collect' instead of > > > just `raco setup my-collect'? > > > > > > At Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:35:01 +0100, Laurent wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Doing > > > > $ raco setup -c my-collect > > > > takes about 30s to "bootstrap from source", and it does that for each > > > such > > > > invocation. > > > > > > > > Is it possible to reduce this time? It makes "raco setup -c" almost > > > > unusable. > > > > > > > > Laurent > > > > ____________________ > > > > Racket Users list: > > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
