Why long command line for libgcj.so?

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Marc Espie wrote:

> >Unfortunatly, it probibly will mean longer incremental rebuild times for
> >libgcj hackers, but overall I think the tradeoff is worth it.
>
> Maybe you should have a look at kde's --enable-final infrastructure ?
>
> It's there to handle the same kind of compromise, and it works really
> great in kde.

Although in KDE we have it to reduce compile time, not to solve linker
issues.  Due to C++' habit of relying on big bloated headers it really
pays off to include them only once per all source files in one directory.
And it's non-intrusive and doesn't require rewrites of any Makefile.am's.
But it needs a custom preprocessor to the Makefile.in's (am_edit).


Ciao,
Michael.