Re: Build process

Thiago,

yes, I built Strongtalk(debug version) with VC++ 2005 Express Edition
without the precompiled header(s). My origianl intent was to get rid
of makedeps and just include everything directly, using "include
guards" to protect against multiple includes. I don't understand which
problem is solved by makedeps. I thought it was motivated by
shortcomings of the C++ environments in the 1990s, maybe. What I
remember is that makedeps takes the information from the includeDBs
and figures out the right sequence of #include statements; plus, when
a single inclde file is used in more than N source files, it's moved
to the preocompiled header.

When I wrote the Perl skript, it turned out that the include DBs where
missing some include depenmdencies; I guess the headers where "just
there" because they where already in the big precompiled include
header "by accident", so nobody noticed the new dependency and updated
the includeDBs. Soo, I lost the plot a bit.. I don't know if
precompiled header that crucial for development. One could create a
precompiled header file containing the most used headers, either from
includeDBs or by extracting the information from the source files. Ah,
and IIRC, makedeps doesn't "make deps", but I saw that GCC has an
option to automatically create deps from #include directives (-M).

Well, after all, makedeps does the job, and there was more interesting
stuff to work on. And Dave Raymer wrote, he also edited the includeDBs
as GCC requires still different includes -- guess I basically wasted
some time ;)

Oliver


On 5 Mrz., 18:36, "Thiago Silva" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Oliver,
>
> On 2/24/07, oe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What I did was basically include in each .hpp
> > file only the absolutely necessary headers to get this .hpp to compile
> > by itself (under VC++). This often resulted in lots and lots of
> > compiler errors in other .cpp files, which I then resolved by simply
> > adding any required header to the .cpp. This way I got each header to
> > compile by itself, but the .cpp includes are a mess. Cleaning those up
> > would be considerably more work, I guess. Not sure if it's really an
> > improvement over makedeps after all, when done this way, so I didn't
> > look into this any more. Maybe I'll do another Perl script to extract
> > the include info from the source files to build a includeDBs (hope I
> > still have them around).
>
> I got curious reading your email. I'm not sure if I understood, but
> have you build Strongtalk with VC++ already?
>
> I wasn't particulary familiar with makedeps sometime ago, and I think
> the deal here is about precompiled headers (anyone please correct me
> if I'm wrong).
>
> --
> Thiago Silva
> Email: [email protected]
> Jabber: [email protected]
> Blog:http://sourcecraft.info/blog


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---