I'm not sure exactly what you mean by trigger. There could be something
like #use_file_foo_now that triggers changing the output file, or there
could be file "handles" so to speak like FileGroupFoo and when you want
to output something you have to pick one. Different approaches have
different trade
Yea, you'd think so... I guess my point is really that we should design the
best mechanism wrt the language first, then worry about scons second, and
even if the best mechanism requires us to explicitly list dependencies in
scons that's probably not sufficient reason to reject it. And I think
Nate
> If we can't do a scanner, I don't have a huge problem with listing output
> files explicitly... yea, it's not as elegant, but I don't expect it to
> change a lot either.
My main question is, how does the parser determine what files it will
generate? Isn't there some trigger in the language at l
If we can't do a scanner, I don't have a huge problem with listing output
files explicitly... yea, it's not as elegant, but I don't expect it to
change a lot either.
Steve
On Feb 2, 2011 2:25 PM, "Gabe Black" wrote:
> On 02/02/11 13:05, nathan binkert wrote:
>>> So, one important question apart f
On 02/02/11 13:05, nathan binkert wrote:
>> So, one important question apart from actually generating multiple files is
>> how we'd get scons to realize the generated files are dependencies of the
>> original ISA description. The actual dependencies are fairly straight
>> forward to set up, the pro
> So, one important question apart from actually generating multiple files is
> how we'd get scons to realize the generated files are dependencies of the
> original ISA description. The actual dependencies are fairly straight
> forward to set up, the problem is scons doesn't know what files are goi
So, one important question apart from actually generating multiple
files is how we'd get scons to realize the generated files are
dependencies of the original ISA description. The actual dependencies
are fairly straight forward to set up, the problem is scons doesn't know
what files are going to b
Agreed.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:
>
> I would not complain if the build times went up slightly but I didn't need
> 8GB of RAM to do a -j 6 build. ;)
>
> Ali
>
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:02:13 -0800, nathan binkert
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone would have any probl
I would not complain if the build times went up slightly but I didn't
need 8GB of RAM to do a -j 6 build. ;)
Ali
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:02:13 -0800, nathan binkert
wrote:
I don't think anyone would have any problems if you did it, no? I've
done many things because they annoyed *me*. The
I don't think anyone would have any problems if you did it, no? I've
done many things because they annoyed *me*. The question is, if it is
worth it. For someone that just rebuilds ISAs all the time, I can
imagine that it is worth it even if it did increase overall build time
slightly. I think i
I know we've talked about this before, but another reason for breaking
up ISA generated files occurred to me as I'm waiting for X86_SE to
build. On a machine with a moderate amount of memory, compiling, say, 8
way parallel works just fine since the memory footprint fits and there's
enough w
11 matches
Mail list logo
