On 04/17/2012 02:38 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Would it be possible to replace gb_CppunitTest_add_library_objects with
something that explicitly lists (only) the individual objects from the
given library that should be linked into the test?
I
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 04/17/2012 02:38 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
But maybe gbuild could be changed to include target-specific LDFLAGS?
That way it'd be possible to build as 'make
sc_ucalc_LDFLAGS=-Wl,--strip-all' . Probably even Bjoern's --enable-debug
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
Does somebody see a problem with this?
What should this possibly solve? This thread is a quite bit ADHD to me pouring
in way too many different topic in one thread.
Best,
Bjoern
___
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
Does somebody see a problem with this?
What should this possibly solve? This thread is a quite bit ADHD to me
pouring in way too many different topic in one thread.
This:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
This:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
discuss
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
This:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
discuss
Hey Bjoern,
2012/4/18 Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
This:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
On 04/16/2012 06:23 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Matúš Kukan wrote:
On 16 April 2012 18:23, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
It is made even worse by the fact that make+gbuild order build commands
so that allmost all compiles go first and linking goes last
As I've seen complaining about this, I was
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
discuss whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols
in the
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 04/16/2012 06:23 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:19:59PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I don't think it would hurt parallelism much, because the linking of svx
needs to be done somewhen, and make should have enough of other stuff to do.
On the other hand, I doubt such one change would change much. Could gbuild be
On Tuesday 17 of April 2012, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:19:59PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I don't think it would hurt parallelism much, because the linking of svx
needs to be done somewhen, and make should have enough of other stuff to
do. On the other hand, I
On 2012-04-17 15:05, Lubos Lunak wrote:
dependencies is not enough. That also means that simple make patching
probably won't do, and it'd need to be changed to prefer depth-first
search for targets to build next.
I thought gmake was depth-first?
That's certainly what the documentation
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:05:26PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
Is the library dependency tree in LO so narrow that the build
would be repeatedly stuck waiting for just one library to be linked?
For an incremental full build it would be a safe bet that it has a severe
performance impact. And once
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 19:42 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
No, you see it backwards :). It reduces code annoyances for IMO very little
price.
Personally I'm a fan of Lubos' efforts here; possibly we need an
underlying namespace to avoid conflicting with other software we link,
but having
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I assume this is about
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to discuss
whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols in the
product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I assume this
On 16 April 2012 18:23, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
It is made even worse by the fact that make+gbuild order build commands
so that allmost all compiles go first and linking goes last
As I've seen complaining about this, I was thinking..
Now, when sw links against svx, make starts
19 matches
Mail list logo
