Kelly O'Hair wrote: > We already use 'make -j' when building the .o files, and the dependencies > should be ok for the .o files. So for native compilations I don't > think we have a problem.
That's interesting; it certainly didn't used to work. I'll try again. > But with Java building, it's not clear 'make -j' is the answer or will > even work. > First, a .java can create multiple .class files, and second all the > javac builds read and write to the classes directory. > If a bunch of javac compilations were done in parallel I don't think > it would be a pretty sight. In general, make and java compilation > has always been complicated or non-robust to say the least. Yes, I gathered that. > Most people don't realize that compiling an explicit list of sources > can sometimes compile more than that, and that often the output directory > is also used in the classpath as an input directory. > You might think this is a bad idea, but it's done, has been for some time. It's a bad idea. :-) > There are multiple possibilities for improving the javac compile time, > but doing it via make is not on my list. Fair enough. One thing that would be of huge benefit is the ability to distribute compilation, a la distcc. Please don't do anything that might restrict building to a single box. Andrew.
