lookup using the preprocessor mode?
WiIl I just have additional overhead when the next direct-look up runs? I
guess this is the only drawback.
regards,
Venkat.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/14 08:32, vkr wrote:> I would li
Hello,
I stumbled across this thread -
https://lists.samba.org/archive/ccache/2012q2/000879.html which is years
old,
Coincidentally, I did some work along similar lines already, without
realizing there was this discussion about this topic here,
and I appreciate some comments/suggestions on my
Hello,
I was wondering why in ccache we are expanding @file
https://github.com/venkrao/ccache-1/blob/59e5244dd79b0fc7df682c8f3c05b778a3d00f91/ccache.c#L1951
Essentially, the arguments that are to be listed in @file are those that
affect the preprocessor.
Is it safe to just not expand the
in the config file on master)?
-- Joel
On 10 September 2014 09:57, Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 10/09/14 08:24, vkr wrote:
Why is that? I mean, when drop preprocessing only when an env variable is
set,
why is it not the right approach?
The development sources on the master branch
a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 08/09/14 11:37, vkr wrote:
If the env variable TRS_CCACHE_NO_PREPROCESSOR_ON_DIRECT_LOOKUP_MISS is
set
then, I do not run preprocessing, but just fall back to running
real-compiler.
I see a lot of time saving, and I can't think of any side-effect.
It's not the right
using the preprocessed output. Also updates
* included_files.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:51 PM, vkr venkatakrishnarao...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
First of all, sorry about the typo in the subject/title of my post.
I run ccache in read-only mode itself. But, I still see that after the
direct
Hello
The documentation about direct mode says:
The current contents of the include files are then hashed and compared
to the information in the manifest. If there is a match, ccache knows
the result of the compilation. If there is no match, ccache falls back
to running the preprocessor. The
