2013/11/27 Vadim Zhukov <persg...@gmail.com>:
> 2013/11/27 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado <i...@juanfra.info>:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:24:33AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> On 2013/11/27 13:05, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>>> > CCache won't work for non-base C/C++ compilers, so don't even try
>>> > to do it. Okays, objections?
>>> >
>>
>> The ports framework only uses ccache with base gcc. I don't know why you
>> need add NO_CCACHE to ports-gcc/clang. Look bsd.port.mk line 2453:
>>
>> .if ${USE_CCACHE:L} == "yes" && ${NO_CCACHE:L} == "no"
>> @${ECHO_MSG} "===> Enabling ccache for
>> ${FULLPKGNAME}${_MASTER}"
>> @ln -s ${LOCALBASE}/bin/ccache ${WRKDIR}/bin/gcc
>> @ln -s ${LOCALBASE}/bin/ccache ${WRKDIR}/bin/g++
>> @ln -s ${LOCALBASE}/bin/ccache ${WRKDIR}/bin/cc
>> @ln -s ${LOCALBASE}/bin/ccache ${WRKDIR}/bin/c++
>> .endif
>>
>> ccache is pretty intelligent, ignores unknown languages or compiler
>> options.
>
> Yes. gcc4.port.mk and clang.port.mk overwrite
> ${WRKDIR}/bin/{cc,c++,...} that are written by bsd.port.mk when
> USE_CCACHE is enabled. But this gives you false sense that ccache
> works, while it does not. This is bad.
>
>>> Ok for now, though in those cases you might want to investigate setting
>>> CC/CXX to "ccache egcc", etc. I didn't use that method for the general
>>> case as I was worried about quoting issues e.g. MAKE_FLAGS= CC=${CC}
>>> but this might be manageable if it's just for ports using non-base
>>> compilers.
>>>
>>
>> Why not add support for ports-gcc/clang?. The symlinks only works with
>> base-gcc but ccache can work with any compiler using
>> "CCACHE_CC=mycompiler". I think a script in ${WRKDIR}/bin with
>> "CCACHE_CC=mycompiler ccache $@" inside or something similar should be
>> enough.
>
> Won't work for more than one language: either C or C++, but not both.
> And there are ports that have both C and C++ sources to be built.
Missed the "script" part, sorry. Yes, this could work but, as sthen@
pointed out, it'll require additional exec(2). Still thinking about
it...
