Hello, We have a considerably large build system that uses non-recursive make to build same source for more than one hardware variant. Not every component is built for all variants either. It is conditional sometimes, as in Component X is built only for Variant MIPS, not for Variant ARM. As this build system is non-recursive, the parse time is huge, but then it flies off fast. It is neatly written. But, when it comes to incremental builds, it is slow, which is where I think tup beats make.
I'm trying to rewrite this build system using tup. I'm finding it difficult to decide on how to organize my Tupfiles. 1. tup expects that files are produced in the same directory as that of Tupfile. This in my opinion creates the following problems: 2. Because we build more than one hardware variant, I cannot co-locate my Tupfile in the same directory as the source file, because, I cannot produce the generated object file in the same directory as I have to build for more than one hardware variant and If I do, they overwrite each other. 3. So, I think I'm forced to make copies of Tupfile for each source directory, in a different directory for each hardware variant so that each hardware variant gets its own sandbox dir for each source directory for the stuff it generates. Alternatively, I can have one big Tupfile per hardware variant OR a few big Tupfiles; that compiles almost all source files to produce .o, .a, .so, or application binary. This isn't as organized as the first option. Are there other better ways? Do you know any tup build system that cross-builds source by default that I can refer while I rewrite ours? Regards, venkrao -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
