Hey Bjoern,
2012/4/18 Bjoern Michaelsen :
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> This:
>>
>> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
>> > 2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak :
>> > > On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> > >> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> This:
>
> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> > 2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak :
> > > On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > >> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
> > >> discuss
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> This:
>
> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> > 2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak :
> > > On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > >> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
> > >> discuss
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > Does somebody see a problem with this?
>
> What should this possibly solve? This thread is a quite bit ADHD to me
> pouring in way too many different topic in one thread.
Th
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Does somebody see a problem with this?
What should this possibly solve? This thread is a quite bit ADHD to me pouring
in way too many different topic in one thread.
Best,
Bjoern
___
LibreO
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 02:38 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > But maybe gbuild could be changed to include target-specific LDFLAGS?
> > That way it'd be possible to build as 'make
> > sc_ucalc_LDFLAGS=-Wl,--strip-all' . Probably even Bjoern's --enable-deb
On 04/17/2012 02:38 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Would it be possible to replace gb_CppunitTest_add_library_objects with
something that explicitly lists (only) the individual objects from the
given library that should be linked into the test?
I
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:05:26PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Is the library dependency tree in LO so narrow that the build
> would be repeatedly stuck waiting for just one library to be linked?
For an incremental full build it would be a safe bet that it has a severe
performance impact. And onc
On 2012-04-17 15:05, Lubos Lunak wrote:
dependencies is not enough. That also means that simple make patching
probably won't do, and it'd need to be changed to prefer depth-first
search for targets to build next.
I thought gmake was depth-first?
That's certainly what the documentation seems
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:19:59PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > I don't think it would hurt parallelism much, because the linking of svx
> > needs to be done somewhen, and make should have enough of other stuff to
> > do. On the other hand,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:19:59PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> I don't think it would hurt parallelism much, because the linking of svx
> needs to be done somewhen, and make should have enough of other stuff to do.
> On the other hand, I doubt such one change would change much. Could gbuild be
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 06:23 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >>Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
> >> whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> 2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak :
> > On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
> >> discuss whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols
> >> in the produc
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Matúš Kukan wrote:
> On 16 April 2012 18:23, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > It is made even worse by the fact that make+gbuild order build commands
> > so that allmost all compiles go first and linking goes last
>
> As I've seen complaining about this, I was thinking..
> Now,
On 04/16/2012 06:23 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I assume
On 16 April 2012 18:23, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> It is made even worse by the fact that make+gbuild order build commands
> so that allmost all compiles go first and linking goes last
As I've seen complaining about this, I was thinking..
Now, when sw links against svx, make starts compiling sw's sour
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak :
> On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
>> whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
>> product, just to make unit tests work :-)
>
> I assume this is abo
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
> whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
> product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I assume this is about 69d46dd7a6adfffd71da055bb6510
18 matches
Mail list logo
