On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 17:58 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Lothar Gesslein dixit:
> 
> >Theese bugs are caused by gcc, not ccache.
> 
> Sure, but: more tools, more code, more bugs.

Yeah of course, but as said, simply disable it to see if the bug comes
from ccache. This will take you less time than you have saved by using
it. And you will save energy and slow down global warming with ccache ;)
Or, if you are a mobile user, your laptop might be able to run longer.
I see far more advantages than disadvantages...

> >exact same thing with the exact same compiler.
> 
> Unless that is proven, I don't believe it.

Quote from the manpage:

------
The basic idea is to detect when you are compiling exactly the same code
a 2nd time and use the previously compiled output. You detect that it is
the same code by forming a hash of: 

the pre-processor output from running the compiler with -E 
the command line options 
the real compilers size and modification time 
any stderr output generated by the compiler 

These are hashed using md4 (a strong hash) and a cache file is formed
based on that hash result. When the same compilation is done a second
time ccache is able to supply the correct compiler output (including all
warnings etc) from the cache. 

ccache has been carefully written to always produce exactly the same
compiler output that you would get without the cache. If you ever
discover a case where ccache changes the output of your compiler then
please let me know.
------

While this is no prove, it makes me quite sure it does only use the
cache when compiling the exact same thing with the exact same compiler.
In science, things are often considered true unless they are proven
wrong. I belive in it, will you prove me wrong? ;)

In the end, it's a quite theoretical discussion which is a bit misplaced
here.
I will do my best in implementing it, and the default will be not to use
it, so you don't enable it, but i do.

Regards
-- 
Lothar Gesslein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
freewrt-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers

Reply via email to