This is excellent info I can use to defend my use case with my co-worker! Thanks so much.
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 10:05:37 PM UTC-6, Robb Matzke wrote: > > Hi Gerardo, > > Besides knowing about the dependencies that "gcc -MD" would > report, Tup's build artifacts also depend on the commands that > build them -- change a command in the Tup file or through > configuration or environment variables and the artifact is > rebuilt. Even better, if the command is some script that's in your > build tree, changing the script itself (or even anything in the > build tree that the script uses!) will rebuild the artifact. Tup > also handles dependencies well for generated source code, if you > do that. And none of this is dependent on some magic, > compiler-specific command-line switch. > > --Robb > > Gerardo Delgadillo writes: > > > 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? > > > > -- > -- -- 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/f0eff21f-d5f2-4834-8bd3-e25fa6e62d8a%40googlegroups.com.
