Jonathan M Davis, el 20 de November a las 14:45 me escribiste: > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 23:32:47 Paulo Pinto wrote: > > Am 20.11.2012 21:57, schrieb Walter Bright: > > > Since people already use precompiled headers with C++, I don't think > > > this change has much chance of making it compile faster. > > > > Is it really so? > > > > I would expect that with proper modules C++ compilers could achieve > > compile times similar to what other module based languages offer. > > Specially if templates are also stored in a module friendly format. > > > > But then again I lack enough compiler development experience to be able > > to judge that. > > > > Assuming you're right, then C++ is really a lost cause, and the current > > trend of standards might follow what happened to Extended ISO Pascal, > > which vendors ignored in favour of Turbo Pascal as the defacto standard. > > You should read this: > > http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/c-compilation-speed/228701711 > > It's an article by Walter explaining why C++ compilation speeds are so slow. > Pre-compiled headers would help in some circumstances, but in others, they > can't (because recompilation is required due to different preprocessor macros > or whatnot).
Did you ever cared about reading those slides?!?!? You keep talking about problems with pre-compiled headers and what Doug Gregor is suggesting are NOT pre-compiled headers. Those are already in clang AFAIK. What he is proposing is a real module system, macros will not be re-evaluated inside modules. The symbols being global have nothing to do with this being pre-compiled headers. Will this solve all the problems from C++ and make its compile time blazingly fast? Probably not, but will sure help, not only to avoid reading the same header over and over, but also by saving memory. But one thing is certain, THIS IS NOT PRE-COMPILED HEADERS (he even mention pre-compiler headers in the slides). For f*ck sake... Please, stop this misinformation madness. Thanks :) --
