Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> make? Salikh Zakirov wrote: >> I know you are teasing (^_-)
>> Geir replied: > I'm actually not. Were there an additional 24 hours in a day.... There > is a whole list of reasons why I'm not a fan of the current system, > including maintainability as well as performance. (Building classlib > takes far less time that DRLVM on windows, for reasons I find utterly > perplexing...) Well, performance-wise, using 'make' will not make DRLVM build any faster, mainly because it is hard (if at all possible) to take advantage of compile-many-cpp-files-by-single-compiler-command mode available in MSVC and Intel compilers. I completely agree on the maintainability side. >> I can easily propose a couple of ways to use make >> for building DRLVM (i.e. running C++ compiler and linker). The last >> thing I played >> with was using shell-script for generating Makefiles using the source >> file list. > > Well, cool :) We have the ability to learn from and improve upon > classlib how we want to try and handle platforms correctly... Actually, I do not think I would want to take classlib's make system as the base, because it does not satisfy two requirements I personally consider important: * concentrate the build configuration in one place * automatically deduce object files lists by finding .cpp files And, I would rather add GNU Make (Cygwin or Mingw) to the required build tools, than maintain two copies of make files. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
