On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-pascal wrote:
Still, it is more logical to place it under utils, with the rest of the
programs.
The argument about the time to compile seems simply false to me:
If you consider the FPC toplevel 'make all' as the only command to
issue, then you may win some time, although I doubt it will be that much.
But 99% of the time, you don't need to recompile the utilities.
I do always a make all as it takes only a few more seconds than a make
cycle and then I am sure everything builds.
You must have a very fast PC, here the difference is very measurable.
1:06 for a 'make cycle'
2:05 for a toplevel 'make all'.
So almost a minute difference. This is with -j 4 and the according fpmakeopt.
I certainly do not:
I usually do a make cycle followed by a compilation of the rtl/packages
with debug info.
So if we moved the IDE to utils where it logically belongs, I would
actually be winning time, contrary to the argument for having it in
packages.
As I moved it, my thinking was that it is not really a utility but a
package (in particular in the sense of the installer). And having
executables is also the case for other packages.
Here I differ in opinion: Normally packages do not constitute a program.
If that was the criterium, all utils could be put in the packages directory.
It may be that some packages have a demo program, but the package itself is
normally just a set of units. I know of no package other that is a program.
chm has some tools but IMO they are also misplaced and should be in utils.
So the IDE - for me - is definitely a utility. Given the times indicated above,
it would make a considerable difference to move it.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
