Hi Jan, On Mittwoch, 10. Jänner 2018 12:43:53 CET Jan Mulder wrote: > On 09-01-18 10:36, Jan Mulder wrote: > > I found out (more or less accidentally) that, for example, the > > divelistmodel.h/cpp code is uniquely used in mobile only. It is highly > > likely that this is true for more models, or models that are uniquely > > used in desktop. > > > > So my question (mainly to Dirk, I think). Is it worthwhile to adapt our > > build system to make this more explicit? I would at least help > > developers to realize this. Not sure it would help with respect to > > footprint of the (primarily mobile) application, as the tool chain might > > weed out that unused code. > > In the meantime, I added a PR (#1033) to implement a split in the models > (only mobile, only desktop, and both). This is cmake stuff only, and no > other code changes. > > That said, with one small code change, I have another PR in queue (that > waits for the decision on #1033), in which I have split-up the models > even further: 3 models generically used, 3 models unique for mobile, and > the remaining 17 models unique for desktop.(when I say model, I mean > .cpp source file containing the model code). Obviously, those 17 desktop > only model code it littered with #ifdef MOBILE blocks, put in in the > early phases of the mobile development, as we did want it to get > compiled. Formally, they are useless know, but notice that the current > split action is based on the current functionality of the mobile app. > And we all know that functionality can change, so models might get moved > over time.
I find both ideas appealing - separating the models into common, mobile and desktop, as well as removing unused #ifdef-ery. Berthold Berthold _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
