terminal.node at gmail.com
Sat May 3 17:00:14 PDT 2008
On Sun, 04 May 2008 01:00:25 +0200, Frank Benoit wrote:
> John Reimer schrieb:
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:25:46 +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:19:54 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote: Bill are you
>>> getting a slowdown in compile time with this. It takes my computer
>>> some time to compile the library, even with oneatatime off. (actually
>>> seems longer than before). Frank is thinking of switching it back
>>> because of this, but if I'm the only one with this problem I can just
>>> compile it to a library myself.
>> I wonder what the status of dsss is? dmd 1.029 added a new switch "-
>> ignore" (which was requested by Gregor a couple of months ago). Does
>> this mean that Gregor will be redisigning a simpler/faster dsss/rebulid
>> that uses dmd verbose (and ditches the dmd frontend)?
>> Hoping we will see something soon. :)
> I did the change to sourcelib to simplify the setup and remove the need
> to rebuild a lib on dwt update.
> I use neither of this. I just add the include path with -I at the dsss
> Probably its better to change back to type=lib, what do you think?
Maybe it would be best to keep it simple and encourage people to just use
-I as you do. It seems that taking more steps to use type=lib or
type=sourcelib is one of complicated, error-prone or problematic (because
both require pre-build and install phases; this may further require a
uninstall phase if dwt users have had a previous version of dwt active
with dsss; dsss' lack of versioning makes this even more of a problem).
Oh... and has anybody tried using bud with dwt recently? What kind of
speed difference is there (between bud and dsss). I recall bobef gave
this a shot earlier.
We should also give Tango's "jake" a try as well. :)
More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt