On December 19, 2019 7:38:09 PM EST, Gerardo Delgadillo <[email protected]> wrote: >I'm porting our ugly C++ Eclipse projects to tup. We have many-many >libraries and executables. So, as a test, I ported a few projects to >tup >and it works great. However, a co-worker said why not use make instead, >and >I answered with "auto-dependencies and speed." He agrees with the speed > >part, but he states that make can do the dependency business, if you >provide the right info, like *.cpp, *.h, *.d, etc. and using the GNU >-MD >flag to generate .d files. > >What's your take on this eternal-debate?
You also miss reruns on flag changes and command line updates with Make. Getting that right is tricky and can make things even slower (file per compilation -> slow due to umpteen thousand tiny files, file per target -> inefficient build potential, but ok if you have uniform flags per library/executable). I'll note that, AFAIK, Tup has no answer for C++20 modules yet. Unity builds could help, but consuming external modules it going to need build system support. I posted about it a few months back. (Full disclosure: I'm a CMake developer and am also involved with the C++ standards committee; here because I'm interested in build tools generally and can at least help answer this.) --Ben -- -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tup-users/614C6D89-1E93-4DCB-A00C-72FBC9CD8886%40gmail.com.
