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: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: "Timothy J. Wood" <tjw at omnigroup dot com>, dberlin at dberlin dot org, jepler at unpythonic dot net, Kai Henningsen <kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:53:55 -0700
- Subject: Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]
On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 02:21 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
More accurate would be, "If the source doesn't compile (or behave same)
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Timothy J. Wood wrote:
No, because the existance of that header shouldn't influence the
Thus, if you are going to implicitly include the header, you damn
well better included it in dependency analysis.
of the compiler in any way.
If the source doesn't compile without the prefix header the user did
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.
something wrong, IOW he's screwed if he doesn't want to fix it.
prefix header is provided on command line using -include option then
did something wrong."
If PFE named my_pfe is made using my_prefix.h then
using PFE means saying
cc --load-pch my_pfe .... my_source.c
This should behave same as
cc -include my_prefix.h ... my_source.c