On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:51 +, Tim Murphy wrote:
> On 24 February 2014 18:33, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > I would definitely want this to be totally invisible to the user and not
> > require any magic in makefiles (so no special include operator, etc.)
> > Basically it should either be so safe th
On 24 February 2014 18:33, Paul Smith wrote:
> I would definitely want this to be totally invisible to the user and not
> require any magic in makefiles (so no special include operator, etc.)
> Basically it should either be so safe that there's no way to tell the
> difference between using the co
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:50 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Yes. But of course for any bigger C/C++ project, although a rather
> specific usecase, it makes up the majority of the source to parse.
> _If_ LibreOffice wouldnt already do some tricks, parsing the 13GB of
> generated dependencies would
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:00:49PM -0500, bug-make-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
> LibreOffice uses some form of automatic dependency tracking. You profiled
> the build and realized that a large fraction of (re)build time was spent
> while make parsed these dependencies. Thus you developed a
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:00:49PM -0500, bug-make-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
> That is extremely limiting. About the only kind of makefile that looks
> like that would be makefiles generated by compilers for dependency
> detection, and not even all of those (for example, the generator
> cou
