Hilco Wijbenga [off-list ref] writes:
Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
for (for most people) little gain.
Not only little gain, but also important risk: users of this feature
would be likely to spend hours debugging something just because some
files weren't recompiled at the right time.
If you want to optimize the number of files compiled by "make", then
ccache is your friend. This one is safe.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:32:07AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Hilco Wijbenga [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
for (for most people) little gain.
Not only little gain, but also important risk: users of this feature
would be likely to spend hours debugging something just because some
files weren't recompiled at the right time.
If you want to optimize the number of files compiled by "make", then
ccache is your friend. This one is safe.
Yes. Despite my previous message showing what _could_ be done, I do
think it's crazy. You should just use ccache.
Speaking of which; does anybody know of a git-aware ccache-like tool?
We already have a nice index of the sha1 of each file in the repository
(along with a stat cache showing us whether it's up-to-date or not).
Something like ccache could avoid even looking in the C files at all if
it relied on git's index.
I don't know how much speedup it would yield in practice, though.
-Peff
On 3 October 2011 00:32, Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] wrote:
Hilco Wijbenga [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
for (for most people) little gain.
Not only little gain, but also important risk: users of this feature
would be likely to spend hours debugging something just because some
files weren't recompiled at the right time.
Possibly. When I do a git pull or similar I do a full build
regardless. I don't know of any build tool that triggers a build
because of a deleted source file (that's an actual problem I ran into
only a couple of weeks ago). Of course, in that scenario the build was
succeeding where it should have been failing. :-)
If you want to optimize the number of files compiled by "make", then
ccache is your friend. This one is safe.
This is all C, right? I'm in Java land so I would assume ccache is of
no use to me. And we certainly don't use make.