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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat?
Date: 1996/07/11
Message-ID: <DuDwJC.C8B@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167813066
references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> <dewar.836427220@schonberg>
 <4rrdn0$10mk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <dewar.836853969@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.836853969@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>So the conclusion is that it definitely seems worth providing an
>option to compile type 2 subunits separate (it can be an option,
>so nothing will be lost if you want to do it the old way, which
>is more efficient in compilation time if you are recompiling the
>whole subtree).

What happens if you switch back and forth between the two options?

I presume gnatmake will be taught about this option also.

- Bob