ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Incremental Compilation and ant
Date Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:11:02 GMT
>>>>> "JG" == Jesse Glick <> writes:

 JG> Warning: this is a long message

Seems like I could add a disclaimer like this to every third message
of mine theses days. Hope this one is an exception.

 JG> I'd like to add a suggestion for a variant of this.

While your approach - with a nit, see below - should work with every
compiler at first glance, I think we should make it depend on the
compiler in question nevertheless. This could be done transparently
for the user.

People like Peter will tell you - and I assume they are right - that
it would be quicker to remove all class files and do a full recompile
using jikes than to parse the class files afterwards. And jikes
dependency tracking seems to work quite reliable.

So I'd like to see this modified to - use an approach like yours
unless build.compiler==jikes. Use jikes dependency tracking otherwise.

 JG> A source file is out of date if any of the following are true:


 JG> 1f. One or more of the source files listed in its .dep file is
 JG> newer than the considered source file.

Shouldn't that be "newer than the considered _class_ file"? The source
file won't change it's timestamp even after the recompile and this
condition will hold true 'till eternity.


View raw message