[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Dependency on lisp.h

From: Bill Perry
Subject: RE: Dependency on lisp.h
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:51:40 -0700

Pardon the horrible mailer I am stuck using right now.  Ick.

To me, this is an argument for breaking lisp.h out into
separate files.  Either the files depend on lisp.h or they
do not.  Having a fuzzy 'well, if you are lucky you will not
have to recompile everything, but there is not a good way to
find out in advance' policy is just asking for trouble.
Leads to people just doing a make clean all (or make bootstrap).

I always do a make bootstrap just to be paranoid, but a lot of
people don't have a machine as fast as mine. :)

-Bill P.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eli Zaretskii
To: address@hidden
Cc: monnier+gnu/address@hidden; address@hidden
Sent: 10/24/00 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Dependency on lisp.h

> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:32:10 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Gerd Moellmann <address@hidden>
> > 
> > Since, when we discussed this several months ago, Richard opposed to
> > adding lisp.h to the dependencies, 
> That matches my recollection.  I don't really understand it, though,
> and I've forgotten again what his reasons were.

The reasoning was that, on the one hand, many files include lisp.h, so
making that dependency explicit in Makefile.in would cause massive
recompilation.  And on the other hand, most changes in lisp.h do not
really require such recompilation, since they change a small fraction
of macros and prototypes.

Emacs-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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