09.03.2016 17:36, Jim Starkey wrote:
> I haven't been following this closely, but how could anyone object to a
> Visual Studio custom build step? It was designed for exactly this type
> of problem.
09.03.2016 15:33, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> I have ZERO problems with current build system.
PS:
On 3/9/2016 11:29 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 17:25, Jim Starkey wrote:
>> Am I missing something, or will a custom build step in Visual Studio
>> handle the problem?
> You're missing Vlad's disagreement.
>
I haven't been following this closely, but how could anyone object to a
09.03.2016 17:25, Jim Starkey wrote:
> Am I missing something, or will a custom build step in Visual Studio
> handle the problem?
You're missing Vlad's disagreement.
--
WBR, SD.
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
On 3/9/2016 10:22 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> On 09/03/2016 12:09, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>> 09.03.2016 15:54, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>>> Dmitry - I'm surprised much with that time. What 386 box are you
>>> building on? :)
>> AMD A4-1250, but I can't use both cores for build beca
09.03.2016 16:22, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> preprocess.bat does write epp->cpp files only when changed AFAIR.
>
> Do the same things for the other generated files.
>
> This will be the correct fix for the problem.
No, it just an ugly workaround. Correct fix is not to do unnecessary
On 09/03/2016 12:09, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 15:54, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> Dmitry - I'm surprised much with that time. What 386 box are you
>> building on? :)
>AMD A4-1250, but I can't use both cores for build because Windows 8 become
> unstable at
> 100% CPU load.
>
>> I have
09.03.2016 15:54, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> Dmitry - I'm surprised much with that time. What 386 box are you
> building on? :)
AMD A4-1250, but I can't use both cores for build because Windows 8 become
unstable at
100% CPU load.
> I have 3 or 4 years old Amd 8120 and full build of btyacc takes
On 03/09/2016 05:42 PM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 15:33, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Compare it with v2.5 build system.
> 2.5 build is about two times faster.
>
>> Also, tell to yourself how much faster it could be
>> if you apply patch you are talking about.
> According to VS
Hi,
You can run 'parse' step from cmake-generated solution (for every VS
you'd like).
Also you can build whole firebird with one click: build solution.
On 9 March 2016 at 17:42, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 15:33, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Compare it with v2.5 build system.
>
>2.5
09.03.2016 16:42, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 15:33, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Compare it with v2.5 build system.
>
> 2.5 build is about two times faster.
Let me not believe you
>> Also, tell to yourself how much faster it could be
>> if you apply patch you are talking about.
09.03.2016 15:33, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> Compare it with v2.5 build system.
2.5 build is about two times faster.
> Also, tell to yourself how much faster it could be
> if you apply patch you are talking about.
According to VS build timing, it should save me about 10 minutes on every
ru
09.03.2016 16:03, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 14:55, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Yep, you are the men who have nothing really useful to do and a lot of
>> free time to waste.
>
> Yep, I have a lot of spare time while current build system 100500 times
> recompile the
> same files ag
09.03.2016 14:55, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> Yep, you are the men who have nothing really useful to do and a lot of
> free time to waste.
Yep, I have a lot of spare time while current build system 100500 times
recompile the
same files again and again. 1-mb size header included into almost eve
09.03.2016 15:43, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 14:38, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Waste of time - it is current thread.
>
> If you forgot, I wasn't the man who insisted on discussing of every
> change.
Yep, you are the men who have nothing really useful to do and a lot of free
t
09.03.2016 14:50, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> Dimitry, it's partial (too partial!) fix. There is one more great
> candidate to be a custom build tool - gpre. When I sometimes need to
> work with windows build need to manually run all that batches (instead
> running make once) drives me crazy. But that's
On 03/09/2016 04:43 PM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 14:38, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> Waste of time - it is current thread.
> If you forgot, I wasn't the man who insisted on discussing of every
> change.
>
>> Run "parse.bat" directly from IDE and relax
> So, you agree with
09.03.2016 14:38, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> Waste of time - it is current thread.
If you forgot, I wasn't the man who insisted on discussing of every change.
>Run "parse.bat" directly from IDE and relax
So, you agree with setting up "parse.bat" as a custom build tool for parse.y
in
E
09.03.2016 15:27, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 09.03.2016 14:21, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> What exact problem do you see ?
>
> Waste of time in batch build.
Waste of time - it is current thread.
> Impossible to build parse.cpp directly from IDE.
Run "parse.bat" directly from IDE a
09.03.2016 14:21, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> What exact problem do you see ?
Waste of time in batch build.
Impossible to build parse.cpp directly from IDE.
--
WBR, SD.
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Acceler
09.03.2016 15:12, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> Hello, All.
>
> Do result of btyacc's work depend on its bitness?
> I wonder why Windows build generate separate btyacc executable for each
> platform-build
> combination. Is there something that prevent the build from using single
> "Win3
Hello, All.
Do result of btyacc's work depend on its bitness?
I wonder why Windows build generate separate btyacc executable for each
platform-build
combination. Is there something that prevent the build from using single "Win32
Release"
btyacc?..
--
WBR, SD.
---
21 matches
Mail list logo