On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Coffler <jeff.coff...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote: > 3. Maintaining the correct includes is nice, but not at the cost of compiler > speed.
Personally, I would invert these statements -- but until we know the cost of the redundant includes, probably not worth debating further. > 4. I totally disagree about auto-generating the PCH. We should go through the > sources and pick what makes sense. Auto-generating implies that we > auto-generate all the time (on every build), and I'd rather not scan the > sources during a build (with an associated speed hit) just to try and speed > up the build. The problem is that "what makes sense" will change over time. Auto-generating the PCH certainly doesn't mean it needs to be generated as part of the build process: a script (or docker container) to generate "mesos_common.hpp" on-demand would be fine with me, as long as it is a mechanical process. Neil
