This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: jepler at unpythonic dot net
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>,"Timothy J. Wood" <tjw at omnigroup dot com>,Kai Henningsen <kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]
- Reply-to: dberlin at dberlin dot org
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Timothy J. Wood wrote:
> > > I can accept an argument of "this is too hard to do correctly right
> > > now", but not "the user screwed up". The user didn't screw up -- the
> > > compiler just isn't smart enough to do it correctly yet.
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > If the source doesn't compile without the prefix header the user did
> > something wrong, IOW he's screwed if he doesn't want to fix it. Period.
> PFE makes it too easy for the programmer to accidentally give his program
> different meaning with or without the prefix header. I can do without one
> more way to screw up my program.
> The following set of files will compile a program with or without PFE, but
> using a PFE that contains both a.h and b.h, the behavior will change.
This is an implementation problem, and one that should be fixed.
As is making symbols visible without the explicit includes (Though this is
slightly harder to solve, but still possible through various means).