Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 96656 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2001 14:22:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 96642 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2001 14:21:55 -0000 Message-ID: <322043DFCB97D511BA7A00508B4AB4B086E692@columbo.eaeurope.com> From: "Summerwill, Bob" To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: RE: C++ tasks Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:21:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Having a C++ compilation task allows C++ or mixed-language projects to move from makefiles to XML build files. This has got all the same benefits as Ant already gives to Java projects. I think it would be a fantastic addition to Ant. Cheers, Bob -----Original Message----- From: Russell, Mark [mailto:Mark_Russell@csgsystems.com] Sent: 12 October 2001 15:01 To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: RE: C++ tasks Just think of the case where your trying to integrate JNI C++ code with Java code, and you'd like to build them all with the same build system. That is really the main reason (in my mind) for a c++ task for Ant MAR -----Original Message----- From: Les Hughes [mailto:leslie.hughes@rubus.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 04:06 To: 'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org' Subject: RE: C++ tasks Hi, Feel free to shoot me down in flames but doesn't VC++ have a perfectly good build system in nmake? And for multithreaded speeded up stuff what about clearmake (with ClearCase). (Oh dear, what have I started....) Bye, Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@houston.rr.com] > Sent: 11 October 2001 03:50 > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org > Subject: Re: C++ tasks > > > > I'm hoping to begin work on this again soon (in the next > few weeks) but my > > intent includes a substantial rewrite of the initial task. > Mostly because > I > > want to speed the task up so I intend to include multithreading > capabilities > > into the task. For now though this is still in design with coding > hopefully > > to start end of month. > > Speed is a very good thing. > > > > > If needed I can repost both Adam and My tasks to the list > or else email > them > > direct to you. > > I'd appreciate your sending them to me. > > > > > One word of warning is that the linker part of my task does > not function > > properly on Sun Workshop, other then that everything should > be working > > My primary interest is driving the Microsoft Visual C++ > compiler on Win32. > > I'd appreciate your thoughts on compile speed minimization. > If compilation > is processor-bound and you aren't on a multiprocessor system, > I wouldn't > think that multiple threads would gain you any performance. Though a > thread-per-processor would probably be appropriate. > > Definitely, I would think that you would want to minimize the > number of > processes created (that is not exec a new process for each > .c[pp] file) and > minimize the number times CL.EXE is loaded. > > Would the same optimizations be appropriate for gcc or other > C++ compilers, > other platforms? > > Any thoughts on dependency checking? >