|[2 earlier articles]|
|Re: Incremental compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-01-23)|
|Re: Incremental compilation email@example.com (1992-01-24)|
|Incremental Compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (Alexander Rozenman) (1999-11-02)|
|Re: Incremental Compilation email@example.com (Matthew Economou) (1999-11-03)|
|Re: Incremental Compilation maratb@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Marat Boshernitsan) (1999-11-05)|
|Re: Incremental Compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bowdidge) (1999-11-16)|
|Re: Incremental Compilation email@example.com (Jan Gray) (1999-11-25)|
|From:||"Jan Gray" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||25 Nov 1999 01:49:16 -0500|
Robert Bowdidge wrote in message 99-11-068...
>(Even though I no longer work for IBM, I can't seem to get away from
>flogging their products...)
Though I no longer work at Microsoft, I still play apologist.
>Microsoft's Visual C++ is not an incremental compiler.
I respectfully disagree. For example,
* after a source file edit, "incremental compilation" (-Gi) skips most
unchanged functions, reusing results of previous compilations.
* after a header edit, "minimal rebuild" (-Gm) skips compilation of most
files which include the header but do not depend upon the changes made to
the header. (This feature helps address most of the class library header
edits that Mr. Bowdidge mentioned.)
* after any edit, "edit and continue" (-ZI) rebuilds and continues
debugging, usually without restarting the debug target.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.