This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: pch messages [was: Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2 compilation speed?]

From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
Cc: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>, bkoz at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 10 Mar 2003 17:12:33 -0800
Subject: Re: pch messages [was: Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2 compilation speed?]
References: <20030310184025.3e265cb8.bkoz@nabi.net><C2096312-535A-11D7-A309-003065A77310@apple.com>

Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com> writes:

> On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 04:40 PM, B. Kosnik wrote:
> > Yes, but I think precompiled file is better than PCH.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Do you think this is the right place for it?
> 
> I don't see that it is terribly wrong.  Geoff may have a better
> suggestion.

Someone (maybe even bkoz) suggested that -H should provide this
information; that certainly sounds like the right place to have
debugging info for header-inclusion problems.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: pch messages
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- Re: pch messages [was: Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2compilation speed?]
  - From: B. Kosnik
- Re: pch messages [was: Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2 compilation speed?]
  - From: Mike Stump

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