Re: #include optimization
From: CBFalconer (cbfalconer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Kai-Uwe Bux: "Re: Storage of C++ Class Hierarchy"
- Previous message: Lionel B: "Re: "Function template" problem"
- In reply to: Peter van Merkerk: "Re: #include optimization"
- Next in thread: Michael Mair: "Re: #include optimization"
- Reply: Michael Mair: "Re: #include optimization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:41:29 GMT
Peter van Merkerk wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> Actually it is a job that can be attacked and checked piecemeal.
>> Remove the (presumably) useless includes in one file by commenting
>> out (thus retaining line numbers) and compile it to an object
>> file. Do a binary compare against the original object file. If
>> identical, all is well.
>
> Even if binary compare shows that there are differences all may be well
> too. I learned this the hard way; compiling the same code twice with a
> certain compiler yielded different binaries. Apparently the compiler
> wrote the build date or something like that into the binary. When debug
> information is stored in object files this test may also fail for the
> wrong reasons.
Why did you snip the last sentence or two from my paragraph, which
mentioned precisely this problem?
-- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
- Next message: Kai-Uwe Bux: "Re: Storage of C++ Class Hierarchy"
- Previous message: Lionel B: "Re: "Function template" problem"
- In reply to: Peter van Merkerk: "Re: #include optimization"
- Next in thread: Michael Mair: "Re: #include optimization"
- Reply: Michael Mair: "Re: #include optimization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|