[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attempt to beautify compilation
- Subject: Re: Attempt to beautify compilation
- From: "Carlos R. Mafra" <crmafra (at) gmail (dot) com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:46:22 +0100
- Message-id: <49100BDE.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dan Pascu wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Dan Pascu wrote:
>> So I'm not sure if this feature will outweight its side effects.
> As a note, if the quiet compilation would be able to display the command
> used to compile a file when there is an error compiling it, then it would
> probably outweight the issue I mentioned before.
Thanks for your comments. I agree with them and I still have to study what
happens when something miscompiles.
But the idea really is that this option would be used by a developer, which
can handle the errors. But if he/she knows that everything compiles cleanly
at some point, he/she can switch off the verbose messages and pay more
attention to what _changes_ after hacking something.
When I am compiling wmaker it is a pain to see gcc warnings, and this
issue goes away by enabling a quiet compilation because they really
stand out that way.
[ The compilation log I posted in the webpage had no warnings
because I got it with "make > compile_log.txt" and the warnings are
not redirected. ]
I mean, I compile the linux kernel and git itself _very_ frequently
to help catching up regressions etc. And those two projects have
a _very_ clean compilation, and somehow I became used to it and
wanted something similar with wmaker. But maybe that is just me :-)
To unsubscribe, send mail to email@example.com.