Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:44:23 +0600 (LKT)
From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: precompiled headers and djgpp
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000316115647.3117K-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003161832550.1731-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, leon wrote:
> 
> > > What would depend on the amount of files?
> > 	
> > 	the efficiency / speed of compilation advantage when using precompiled
> > header.
> 
> Ten times a fraction of a second (required to process the header) is
> still not enough time to bother about, IMHO.

Actualy windoze programming was one reason for compiler authors to add the
precompiled header facility. Just see how many lines of source from god
knows how many header files does "#include <windows.h>" cause to be
included, which is much worse if you use the MFC foundation class headers.

And since most of the programmers time is spent in the
"modify the source->compile->link" loop a lot of development time would be
saved if precompiled headers can be used instead of includeing 20000 lines
of windoze headers every compile.

So IMHO precompiled headers would be useful and necessary if you are
programming in windoze apps which usually drag in monstrous amount of
header code, but it is of limited (superflous?) use in a DOS compiler.


Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)