BorlandTalk.com

Randall Parker · Guest

Any more ideas? I'm sure this is an incomplete list.

1) Distributed Builds.
A) Be able to register a bunch of machines for sending source files out to them
to be compiled.
B) Each node should have a build manager demon that reports back to each
developer's machine whether the node is already doing a build for someone else. So
you kick off a build and it gets doled out only to machines that are not already busy.
C) Your own builds should have priority on your machine over builds from other
machines. But one complication is that you shouldn't be able to so lower the priority
of a part of someone else's build that their one file from their build to your
machine doesn't finish long after the rest of their files have compiled. Though
perhaps a way to automatically cancel the compile and reassign that file to another
machine could be done based on how much CPU time that file is getting? Seems
complicated to do this feature well.
D) Maybe a build queue makes the most sense. You submit your build and if another
build is running on the shared machines you get told that your build has entered the
queue.

2) Multithreaded builds on a single OS instance.
Given that hyperthreading and SMP with multiple CPU cores on a chip look to be
the trends build/make logic that does not spin off a bunch of threads does not make
optimal use of the machine.

3) Smarter Make Logic to first compile the files that are most likely to have syntax
errors.
Suppose that there are files
a.cpp, a.h,
b.cpp, b.h,
c.cpp, c.h,
d.cpp, d.h
and suppose that all the cpp files include all the .h files. Therefore a change
in any header file requires all the .cpp files to need rebuilding (this is a
hypothetical to illustrate a point).
Suppose that the files that have changed since the last build are:
c.cpp
c.h
d.h
What file does it make sense to compile first? It is obvious to me that c.cpp
should be compiled first. All the .cpp files need to be compiled. But c.cpp ought to
be compiled first because doing so checks both c.cpp and c.h. An error with c.h
missing something that c.cpp needs will not be found until c.cpp is compiled. So why
compile a.cpp and b.cpp and only then c.cpp? The error in c.h that must be fixed to
make c.cpp compile correctly will require a recompile of a.cpp and b.cpp. So why
compile them first?
Also, the changes in d.h are more likely to cause syntax errors in d.cpp than in,
say, b.cpp. So after compiling c.cpp the next logical candidate to compile is d.cpp.
Anyone agree, disagree with all this?

4) Smarter Make Logic to order source files to reduce the number of header file reads
from disk.
Suppose 5 out of 20 .cpp files all include x.h and y.h and x.h has changed.
Suppose the user is not making use of precompiled headers. It makes sense to group
those 5 files together and have the compiler read x.h and y.h in once and cache them
across the 5 compiles of the 5 .cpp files.

5) Multiple build configurations in a single project.
- With and without debug info.
- With and without CodeGuard.
- Static versus dynamically loaded dlls.
- etc.
Do them all from the same project.
A) Have the ability to set "Current Default Build" so that when you do Make or
Build or Run that is the build configuration that gets Make logic done to it.
B) Have the ability to say "Build All Configurations".
C) Have the ability to drag some configurations to a list and then say "Build
Configuration List".

6) A Precompiled Headers Expert/Wizard that analyses your source code to suggest
candidates for precompiled header configurations.

7) Query a Make Interface to get "List Of Files That Need Rebuilding".
Before kicking off a big build be able to find out which files will get rebuilt.
It would be nice to be able to take that list and drag items on the list to
change the order of the building so that files you think are more likely to have
syntax errors will get built first.

Alex Bakaev · Guest

Randall Parker wrote:

Randall Parker · Guest

Alex,

What are Source Pools?

How was Options Inheritance done? (I last used BCW far too long ago and for too short
a period of time to remember)

Did TargetExpert only change the project type?

Alex Bakaev wrote:

Alex Bakaev · Guest

Randall Parker wrote:

Randal,

Kenneth de Camargo · Guest

Alex Bakaev wrote:

Leroy Casterline · Guest

"Kenneth de Camargo" <INVERT:rb.moc.arret@jcrk> wrote:

Russell Hind · Guest

Randall Parker wrote:

Harry Bego · Guest

"Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:41c8872b (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...

Pete Fraser · Guest

Now what does that mean?
I though enchanted had something to do with magic/spells?
Or do you mean enhanced?
Rgds Pete

"Leroy Casterline" <casterle (AT) ccltd (DOT) com> wrote

Russell Hind · Guest

Pete Fraser wrote:

OBones · Guest

Randall Parker wrote:

Kenneth de Camargo · Guest

Leroy Casterline wrote:

Hendrik Schober · Guest

Russell Hind <noone (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote:

Hendrik Schober · Guest

Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

Randall Parker · Guest

Yes, I just posted a link to IncrediBuild's web site so that Schobi would go off and
try it. I recalled him saying he does long builds. Hopefully he will report back on
how well he thinks it works.

Have you used it? If so, what features does it have that are neat?

OBones wrote: