This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]
- From: Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Cc: "Timothy J. Wood" <tjw at omnigroup dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:57:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]
On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 02:41 PM, Neil Booth wrote:
I saw it when we started working on PFE. We have followed MW like
Devang Patel wrote:-
In your previous two queries, what you want from PFE is to discard few
based on macros from precompiled headers. But when PFE restores
it has gone too far as far as macros are concerned.
The implementation should know what its assumptions are, and if they're
broken recover somehow. Have you seen KAI's documentation (online)
for their PCH implementation? It seems like a good solution to me.
approach in PFE. PFE can be modified to be like KAI's implementation.
But, I think, KAI implementation is concentrated on precompilling
From beginning, one of the requirement of PFE is to be able to save
and restore already compiled sources, provide debugging information and
make available central repository of saved trees for feedback and
inter-modular optimizations. To achieve this larger goal, it was
decided that an external tool like IDE can handle other issues like
include in prefix header. Because, in PFE it is not just prefix
header, but it is
a prefix file.
(BTW I have never used MW, so I may be absolutely wrong
that PFE is like MW)