[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PCH support
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: PCH support |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:31:29 +0900 |
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)...
-Miles
--
Cat is power. Cat is peace.
- 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 <=
- 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, 2011/12/25
- Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23
Re: PCH support, Olaf van der Spek, 2011/12/23