I guess all the arguments are on the table - Chris, what do you think? Thanks, /Manuel
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Reviewers: chandlerc, >>> >>> Description: >>> Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful >>> tool for quick feedback editor-integration. >>> >>> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ >> >> One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build it >> all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into >> yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? > > Hi Chris, > > I don't care either way which way this goes, I'd just like to point > out that building this binary takes a whopping 1.5s on my underpowered > MBP: > > s$ time make > llvm[0]: Compiling ClangCheck.cpp for Release+Asserts build > llvm[0]: Linking Release+Asserts executable clang-check (without symbols) > llvm[0]: ======= Finished Linking Release+Asserts Executable > clang-check (without symbols) > > real 0m1.599s > user 0m1.239s > sys 0m0.327s > > > Nico > >> >> -Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
