On Tuesday 10 October 2006 04:56 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > On Friday 06 October 2006 18:24 Salikh Zakirov wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > It has its own disadvantages like all object files are put in the same > > place, so no name duplication can happen. It also doesn't allow fixing > > compilation problems in some particular subdirectory because ant requires > > running only from the top level for all file tree. > > Um. Have you looked at class library lately? Sure, there are root > points, but it's no larger a unit than the DRLVM component.
It compiles 3 times faster than drlvm :) > > The only valid reason for ant build system I think is that make requires > > cygwin, mingw or some emulation of bash/make/sed environment of fileutils > > and binutils on windows. > > Hm? I don't need that for classlib.... I actually meant ant build for drlvm. For classlib as for building java ant is very good. -- Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
