This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Problem with PFE approach [Was: Faster compilation speed]

On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 02:21  AM, Michael Matz wrote:


On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Timothy J. Wood wrote:

   Thus, if you are going to implicitly include the header, you damn
well better included it in dependency analysis.
No, because the existance of that header shouldn't influence the outcome
of the compiler in any way.

   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.
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.
More accurate would be, "If the source doesn't compile (or behave same) when
prefix header is provided on command line using -include option then user
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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]