Kai Backman wrote: > However, finding these problems is significantly faster if it is > easy for everyone to -test- them, which means the CWS should be > integrated sooner with issues rather than later when it's totally > perfect. It is not turned on by default. You can build using both > ways. You RE guys hate gigantic CWS's, maybe we should save some fixes > for pchfix05 and later?
So it is a good thing that after 2.2 we will have 6 months until the next release where we can let the code settle. We should try to find as much problems beforehand though. > The bigger question is why are such constructs used in the first > place? Modifying a hxx file using a define is just plain bad > programming in most cases. Agreed. But it's pointless to ask these questions more than 10 years after the code was written by people that are no longer with us. I assume they had their reason - even if this reason was that they just didn't know a better alternative. I assume that they just wanted to avoid the explicit argument and thought that this is the easiest approach. Anyway, we all agree that we should throw this out. >> another point that worries me is the different list of includes >> depending on using pch or not. > > Yes! Headers that are order dependent are usually broken in more > than one ways anyway. Finding them by turning on pch would be a Good > Thing. Wouldn't be making sure that each and every header compiles as it is a good idea for a first step? E.g. the item header files don't fulfil this request but I'm sure there are more headers that don't compile. >> at the moment, i'm not sure that this "all you can include" approach >> will come to an happy end. maybe cautiously selecting a set of includes >> for the precompile hxx would be more appropriate regarding the two >> issues i currently see... > > At this point we have 8645 #include statements in the the various > pch files. It took martink and me about a month to come up with this > list using our simple strategy. Who will do this cautious selection? > Would it perhaps be a better idea to include those fixes in pchfix05? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the headers used with pch different to the headers used for compiling a particular source file anyway, even if you have created the minimum set of needed headers? So if you use pch you automatically agree that the definitions seen while compiling a particular source file may differ in case some header files are evil[TM]. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
