ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: can't look archives - Ant for C??
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:39:48 GMT
Compiling native code just takes longer... Ant/CppTasks doesn't improve the
build performance that much over makefiles, if at all. It's actually not
what matters. What matters to me are:

1) The excellent dependency analysis performed, on the sources and the
compiler/linker command line for example (when an option is modified).
2) The clear and easy XML definitions
3) The cross-platform ability. To be honest, using GNU make is also
cross-platform, probably even more so, but the options to be used on various
platforms have to be conditionally declared. CppTasks does this in a much
nicer way.
4) Single type of build system in mixed Java/C++ projects.

This is why CppTasks is so valuable to me. --DD

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Hiller [mailto:dhiller@avaya.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Ant Users List
Subject: Re: can't look archives - Ant for C??

No, not looking for a converter.  The program doesn't even need to be 
written in C.  I just would like to be able to write  a build.xml file 
and get rid of all the make files that are currently used.  I can do 
that myself.  I don't mind.  Just need a program.  I will try the 
contrib.zip and see what that has.  thanks Dominique for that info.
    What I am hoping is this will speed up the build of our legacy 
system.  I don't understand how it takes 5 hours to build a 50 meg 
binary and I can build a 15 meg java binary in 10 minutes with ant.  I 
think it has something to do with make files and the scripts.  I have a 
feeling if those can be eliminated, the build can be improved 
drastically.  The above statistics tell me the legacy is around 3.5 
times bigger but takes 30 times as long to build.  Has anybody looked at 
build performance before?
thanks,
Dean

Mime
View raw message