On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> I think the idea is that if autoconf detects that PCH is available and
> automake generates the correct compiler commands to use it, it will be there
> "for free" to any user of the autotools. Builds just get magically faster.
I don't think
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
> Another monkey wrench is gcc and Visual C++ have different models for
> how PCH is implemented. Support in Automake would ideally target both
Have they? AFAIK they're equivalent.
> by finding a compatible subset. I'm sure there are existing
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> First, I know basically nothing about PCH, and it seems to me that it is not
> a feature many users would require or employ.
Why not? It can drastically reduce build times of C++ projects. I have
little experience with C projects, but I
Olaf van der Spek writes:
> Why not? It can drastically reduce build times of C++ projects. I have
> little experience with C projects, but I assume it speeds those up as
> well.
It's unlikely to help a great deal with most C projects, since most C
headers just aren't very complicated and other
On 12/22/2011 06:47 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 02:06 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> This change fixes automake bug#9807.
>>
> I've squashed in the fixlet below, tested the patch on NetBSD 5.1 for good
> measure (the libtool tests that were by default being skipped there started
>
