[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cache directory is not removed

From: Earnie Boyd
Subject: Re: cache directory is not removed
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:46:25 -0400

"Steven G. Johnson" wrote:
> Earnie Boyd wrote:
>  > So now I run `configure -C' always.  I use the cache files to
>  > determine problem areas of my runtime libraries.
> Bill Wendling wrote:
> > BTW, the removal of automatically generating a config.cache file by
> > default was a bad idea, in my opinion. We actually use that file quite a
> > bit.
> Generating config.cache by default caused recurrent problems with users
> who would inadvertantly use stale config.cache files.

Notice that I said that I use `configure -C' as a suggestion for the
users who want config.cache.  There was a point in time when I didn't
know what a config.cache was.  There was a point in my life when
config.cache was bad.  Then I came to realize how it was useful to me. 
Yes, if I change the runtime, I must recreate the config.cache.

> The configure script is intended for *users*, who by far outnumber
> developers and are far less capable of realizing what config.cache is
> doing.  It doesn't make sense to optimize the uncommon case (the
> developers, who are perfectly capable of using -C or of modifying
> to make it the default) at the expense of the common case
> (the users).

I agree.

> Akim wrote:
>  > They don't have understood the point.  And then, why keep the .o too?
>  > And the .deps?
> Again, it's a matter of tradeoffs and optimizing for the common case.
> On the one hand, programs spewing files as a side-effect that the user
> didn't explicitly request is generally undesirable.  On the other hand,
> developers change source code files and recompile *very* often, so the
> extra speed (which can be orders of magnitude for .o!) is worth the
> filesystem litter.
>  >I don't think you realize the impact of using the cache here.  On the
>  >file utils, on my machine, it means that running automake, autoconf
>  >and autoheader is about 1min long.  Remove the cache, it's three
>  >minutes.
> Running autoconf + automake + autoheader is not a common operation for
> most developers (autoconf developers don't count!), and in such a
> context I would argue that one minute vs. three is not that significant.

There are a number of packages that if you have these installed will run
them for you.  I don't think it good but ...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]