Date:	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:04:15 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" <moscoop AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Compiling with DJGPP.... how can I speed it?
In-Reply-To:	<38D695EF.AD813E97@americasm01.nt.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000322110359.17945a@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH] wrote:

> Some of use are spoiled though.  What I usually do is compile, get a
> list of x compiliation errors, fix the first one, then compile
> again.  I have found that in about 10% of cases, the initial error
> in the code confuses gcc so it 'make up' some of the other errors.
> This means that I sometimes compile code every 10 seconds.

I doubt that 10 seconds would be enough to correct an error, at least
not in most cases.

Anyway, if you use the right tools, you can start correcting the
errors without waiting for the compiler to finish.

>     The point being, if my code doesn't compile in < 2 seconds, I
> look for ways to speed it up.  I realize that, beyond some limit,
> there is nothing I can do, and if most of the time is spent in the
> linker stage, there's not much I can do, but 10 seconds is a long
> time for most of us.

Please note that 10 seconds is what it should take for a 10,000-line
source to compile.  Anyone who writes such long source files has *got*
to be prepared to wait for the compiler.

Most files of a _reasonable_ size will indeed compile in less than 2
seconds, even on a P166.

- Raw text -