t 01:57:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> | > > So we would lose lazy construction.
>> | >
>> | > What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
>> |
>> | Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows.
>>
>> Just back from a wonde
e would lose lazy construction.
> | >
> | > What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
> |
> | Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows.
>
> Just back from a wonderfull weekend at the west coast of Norway; what
> does Lars know?
People say Lars should
| Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows.
Just back from a wonderfull weekend at the west coast of Norway; what
does Lars know?
--
Lgb
On Friday 16 August 2002 3:46 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > The attached patch to the xforms/Dialogs* files knocks about 30secs off
> > compile times on my machine.
>
> 12 seconds out ouf 11 minutes here.
>
> > If they find a similar
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> The attached patch to the xforms/Dialogs* files knocks about 30secs off
> compile times on my machine.
12 seconds out ouf 11 minutes here.
> If they find a similar spped up with g++ and still care deeply, then perhaps
> they'll e
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:53:57PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> Eliza: Oh, i a long time to compile.
Andre> Did you mis-spell 'Eulalie'?
Eliza: Oh, i misspell eulalie.
JMarc
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:53:57PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Eliza: Oh, i a long time to compile.
Did you mis-spell 'Eulalie'?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What about the other 3600s?
Angus> 60mins for xforms/Dialog*.C ? Wow. It must take you a /long/
Angus> time to compile the whole of LyX.
You: It must take you a /long/ time to compile the whole of LyX. They'll take José
0.60secs.
On Friday 16 August 2002 2:41 pm, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> My solution(s) are clean, but appear more expensive in terms of
> Angus> compile times. I therefore offer you two alternative
> Angus> implementations.
> So you sh
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> My solution(s) are clean, but appear more expensive in terms of
Angus> compile times. I therefore offer you two alternative
Angus> implementations.
So you shaved 30s. What about the other 3600s?
JMarc
0, Angus Leeming wrote: > So
> >> we would lose lazy construction.
> >>
> >> What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
>
> Angus> Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows. A
>
> Wasn't it the fix to crashes with gcc 2.96?
No, his
What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
Angus> Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows. A
Wasn't it the fix to crashes with gcc 2.96?
JMarc
On Friday 16 August 2002 2:19 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > So we would lose lazy construction.
>
> What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
Conceptual elegance? Reducing compile times? Lars knows.
A
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> So we would lose lazy construction.
What was this good for anyway? To reduce startup time?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
The attached patch to the xforms/Dialogs* files knocks about 30secs off
compile times on my machine.
It simply replaces al those
boost::scoped_ptr xyz;
with
XYZDialog xyz;
So we would lose lazy construction.
Personally, I'm ambivalent, but if someone cares deeply about this th
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Angus Leeming wrote:
[...agree with the rest...]
> Coping in the heat Ok?
Guess what! It bucketed down rain and is now somewhat cooler.
Mind you those couple of really hot days I just hid here at uni in the
airconditioning.
Allan. (ARRae)
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 3:33 am, Allan Rae wrote:
[snip my original message]
> Maybe ControlDialog_impl.[Ch] instead (like a _pimpl only different).
Nice. Done.
> Secondly, I think we should wait with this change (the other is
> probably okay) until after 1.2.0 and we've have time to discus
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:34:38AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Andre', slightly astonished.
>
> Sure, because these classes are base classes for 8 others. If, when I make
> these 8 classes I also make the template base classes, then all is fine.
>
> Make sense?
Now that I read in Lars' rep
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 7:25 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:16:34PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > It works like a dream here and I can see no issues associated with this.
Do
> > those more knowledgable than I have any problems with it? If not, I'd
like to
> > subm
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:16:34PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> It works like a dream here and I can see no issues associated with this. Do
> those more knowledgable than I have any problems with it? If not, I'd like to
> submit the change.
You are able to put templated _definitions_ in the .C
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 6:37 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Here's a second question. Many of the other controllers (15 in fact) are
> > derived from ControlDialog, so again I'll split ControlDialog.h into
> > ControlDialog.h and ControlDialog.tmpl
> >
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 6:37 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Here's a second question. Many of the other controllers (15 in fact) are
> derived from ControlDialog, so again I'll split ControlDialog.h into
> ControlDialog.h and ControlDialog.tmpl
>
> However, there are only two instatiations of Co
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 6:26 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | If, however, I split the file into a definition in ControlInset.h and a
> | declaration of the class in ControlInset.C, then #include
> | "ControlInset.C" in
>
> ah... I was going to ask how you do this without export...
>
> Yo
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:26:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | It works like a dream here and I can see no issues associated with this. Do
> | those more knowledgable than I have any problems with it? If not, I'd like to
> | submit the change.
>
> then I'd like the ControlInset inclu
ControlInset is a templatised class that is used as the base class for many
of the inset controllers. Currently, both the definition and declaration of
the class are in ControlInset.h. Changing anything in this file results in
recompilations of:
in directory controllers:
ControlBibitem.C Contr
25 matches
Mail list logo
