yes, this will yield a good results for build time. I would like to get more comments from other developers regarding this.
On 21 November 2011 06:24, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Arunprasad Rajkumar < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Why don't we follow chrome style of file inclusions rather than the usual. >> >> For example, >> *#include "WebCore/Page/Chrome.h"* >> >> This will be more convient way of representing the inclusion. Hope it >> will avoid long compiler inclusion paths and file namespace issues. > > > Here are some pros and cons I can think of: > > Pros: > * If used pervasively, would allow us to greatly trim the compiler include > search paths, possibly providing a noticeable build speedup (I have no > estimated numbers). > * Makes it slightly more obvious to a reader what, precisely, is being > depended upon; might make it easier to notice layering violations. > > Cons: > * Would require us to convert the existing codebase (possibly easy with > the help of a script, but would at least result in touching all the files) > * Generates more "change noise" when a header is moved around > * Could pose problems for ports that need to supply particular headers > from some override directory instead of the "typical" spot. (I'm being > vague here because I think this is probably a real issue but I don't > actually know the details of enough ports' build setups to be clear.) > > I would prefer the full-path style myself, especially if there is really a > build-time win, but I strongly suspect that a lot of folks would see the > benefit here as not worth the cost. > > PK >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
