Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio
От | John Naylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFBsxsEkzshhd0v_8W4=KEu5580+B4MtgNafSKk9uNGykgb1+A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 5:24 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > > Why is this being proposed? > > > > Andres is annoyed by the long build time of ecpg, which he has to > > wait for whether he wants to test it or not. I could imagine that > > I might disable ecpg testing on my slowest buildfarm animals, too. > > This message triggered me to try to teach ccache how to cache > preproc.y -> preproc.{c,h}, and I got that basically working[1], but > upstream doesn't want it (yet). I'll try again if the proposed > refactoring to allow more kinds of compiler-like-things goes > somewhere. I think that started with people's struggles with GCC vs > MSVC. Given the simplicity of this case, though, I suppose we could > have a little not-very-general shell/python/whatever wrapper script -- > just compute a checksum of the input and keep the output files around. If we're going to go to this length, it seems more straightforward to just check the .c/.h files into version control, like every other project that I have such knowledge of. To be fair, our grammar changes much more often. One other possible deal-breaker of that is that it makes it more painful for forks to maintain additional syntax. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: