Matthew Woehlke <matthew.woeh...@kitware.com> writes: > I'm not sure that's correct behavior. What if the modification to the > .cpp file was to remove the definition of a function declared in a > header? Now your executable that was using that function will crash when > you try to run it due to a missing symbol. If you had re-linked, you > might instead get a link error letting you know something is wrong.
Yes, but this is a very rare thing to do. And the "failure" result is just that the problem would be discovered at test time instead of link time. What's being proposed here is a massive optimization for the common case (changing code in a library and not changing the API or tests) by sacrificing a little bit of latency (the time between link and test) in the extremely rare case. I wouldn't think this would be a hard tradeoff to make. Could it be added at least as an option? -- Cheers, Leif -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
