[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PCH support
From: |
Olaf van der Spek |
Subject: |
Re: PCH support |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:51:20 +0100 |
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2011/12/26 Olaf van der Spek <address@hidden>:
>>> Faster enough to be worth the annoyance for the developer of twisting
>>> his source code to fit the "pch style" (which seems notably uglier)?
>>
>> Yes
>> I'm not sure what twisting you're referring too though.
>
> Another comment noted that PCH was often ineffective or even
> counter-productive unless the bulk of your includes are precisely the
> same between compilation units, and that in practice systems like VS
> try to get the user to define a single "include everything" header
> file (presumably instead of the normal practice of "include the stuff
> you use").
>
> Sounds pretty darn ugly (and I expect makes compile times far worse if
> you _can't_ use PCH in some case)...
Is someone forcing you to use PCH? I'm not sure what your point is.
--
Olaf
- PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Warren Young, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Dave Hart, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23
- Re: PCH support, Miles Bader, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support, Miles Bader, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support,
Olaf van der Spek <=
- Re: PCH support, Miles Bader, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23
Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23