Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 04:56 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Friday 06 October 2006 18:24 Salikh Zakirov wrote:
I'm actually not. Were there an additional 24 hours in a day....
There is a whole list of reasons why I'm not a fan of the current
system, including maintainability as well as performance. (Building
classlib takes far less time that DRLVM on windows, for reasons I find
utterly perplexing...)
Well, performance-wise, using 'make' will not make DRLVM build any
faster, mainly because it is hard (if at all possible) to take advantage
of compile-many-cpp-files-by-single-compiler-command mode available in
MSVC and Intel compilers.
It has its own disadvantages like all object files are put in the same
place, so no name duplication can happen. It also doesn't allow fixing
compilation problems in some particular subdirectory because ant requires
running only from the top level for all file tree.
Um. Have you looked at class library lately? Sure, there are root
points, but it's no larger a unit than the DRLVM component.
It compiles 3 times faster than drlvm :)
Yes, that's been my contention for a while. But I was noting that you
can have subtrees that build with both make and ant.
The only valid reason for ant build system I think is that make requires
cygwin, mingw or some emulation of bash/make/sed environment of fileutils
and binutils on windows.
Hm? I don't need that for classlib....
I actually meant ant build for drlvm. For classlib as for building java ant is
very good.
Ah :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
