From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,53ca16c587912bce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Geert Bosch Subject: Re: Source files organisation using gnat Date: 1997/07/06 Message-ID: <5podbt$sn8$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 255214426 References: <19970630185901.OAA27670@ladder02.news.aol.com> Organization: La Calandre Infortunee Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: As to "useless recompilations", actually nothing is uselessly recompiled. The internal semantic tree of withed units is reconstructed from source, but this is nothing like a full compilation, since the expensive part, namely code generation is always skipped for with'ed units. However many source files are uselessly parsed into a semantic tree. When you have a program that uses a large binding, like the 1.2 MB OS/2 API package specifications I use, these will get read and parsed for every single compilation unit that withs it. The time spend in parsing these packages specs (8 seconds on my 486DX-100) tends to be much longer than the actual compilation time. The flat nature of these API specifications do lead to big packages, since splitting them in a hierarchical structure is not meaningful as you argued a while ago. So what might be useful is to have some kind of compilation server that can keep state between compilations and re-use internal datastructures like parse trees. Of course in that case you may have to worry about memory management and for example restart the server periodically. Regards, Geert