On 2010-05-10 23:05, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bad timing, I know, since 3.0pre1 has just been announced, but here it
> goes anyways. This series of patches adds Win32 support for ccache.
> Tested with mingw32. Compiling FFmpeg went from 5m13s (first run) to
> 45s (direct mode). Impressive!
N
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> You should get the latest source code with git, then apply the patches
> sequentially, and win32_tests.diff last. Then run "sh autogen.sh",
> configure and make normally.
Thanks for the quick response, and I will try it under MinGW and MSYS.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Ramiro Polla wrote:
>> Is it possible to supply some Win32 binary files, so that a normal
>> user can use it directly (not build it himself)
>
> Here it is:
> http://ramiro.arrozcru.org/ccache-win32-1.exe
By the way the file should be renamed to "ccache.exe", othe
Hi,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:59 PM, asm warrior wrote:
> Hi, all. I just came from this post in Codeblocks form:
> http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,12285.msg83666.html#msg83666
>
> I have just find the Win32 support of ccache from this post:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/ccache@list
Hi, all. I just came from this post in Codeblocks form:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,12285.msg83666.html#msg83666
I have just find the Win32 support of ccache from this post:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ccache@lists.samba.org/msg00426.html
But there are only patches on the curren
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> The most important thing is to find out the exact command line used when
> the compilation failed. Your build system doesn't seem to print that, so
> I think you either should try to increase verbosity in some way or
> upgrade to ccache 3.0pre
Hi,
Bad timing, I know, since 3.0pre1 has just been announced, but here it
goes anyways. This series of patches adds Win32 support for ccache.
Tested with mingw32. Compiling FFmpeg went from 5m13s (first run) to
45s (direct mode). Impressive!
The first 8 patches clean code up to simplify adding w
On 2010-05-10 22:49, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
>> - Code that uses (or rather: potentially uses) __{DATE,FILE,TIME}__
>>macros is handled correctly in direct mode.
>
> What about __LINE__? Won't that also affect the output? (for example
> if t
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> The most important thing is to find out the exact command line used when
> the compilation failed. Your build system doesn't seem to print that, so
> I think you either should try to increase verbosity in some way or
> upgrade to ccache 3.0pre
On 2010-05-10 03:24, Christer Edwards wrote:
> I've enabled logging and I would attach the logfile, but it is 12M
> total size. I've included the tail end, just leading up to the
> failure:
> [...]
> [78047] Running real compiler
> [78047] Compiler gave exit status 1
>
> This build had no CFLAGS o
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> - Code that uses (or rather: potentially uses) __{DATE,FILE,TIME}__
> macros is handled correctly in direct mode.
What about __LINE__? Won't that also affect the output? (for example
if there was an extra empty line)
_
Hi,
I'm pleased to announce ccache version 3.0pre1. I expect this prerelease
(or call it beta release if you want) to be very close to the upcoming
3.0 release functionality-wise, so I encourage everyone to try it out.
And please report any bugs or misbehaviours you find to this mailing
list or th
On 2010-05-10 00:26, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> $subj
ACK
-- Joel
___
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
13 matches
Mail list logo
