Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

To be fair, changing compiler switches or otherwise doing something that 
might change the object code that is generated, is a reasonable excuse 
to insist on invalidating the dependency chain. Can you really be 
absolutely, positively, 100%, double your money back, certain that if 
you recompile a spec with different compiler options, that this will in 
no way, shape or form impact the way other things might rely on it?

Remember that Ada was originally intended for use by people who's 
marketing slogan was "We bet *your* life on it!" I am not surprised if - 
especially in early implementations - Ada compilers got really 
conservatibe with respect to recompilation. If it were me, I'd start 
with the premise of "Recompile The World" and then look for absolute 
proof that recompiling some specific module was not necessary.

MDC

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> The broken systems triggered cascading recompiles when a spec was
> recompiled *whether or not the spec had changed*. There are several
> instances mentioned where people wanted to recompile a module for
> extra debugging or optimization, and that in itself triggered the
> cascade, even though no source file had changed.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================