Re: [jamboost] Re: Simplify target path generation?

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 12:43:11

[2003-10-21] David Abrahams wrote:

>"Kirill Lapshin" <klapshin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> --- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
>>
>>> What do users think about it?
>>> 
>>> Two possible problems are:
>>> 
>>> 1. A bit longer paths. Not a real problem, I think.
>>> 2. If one cpp is used by two exe, it will be recompiled twice. I
>> think this 
>>> will be quite rare.
>>
>> Fine with me -- paths already long enough to render them pretty much
>> unusable :)
>>
>> So I have to rely on unit-test, symlink and stage anyway.
>
>Interesting viewpoint. Maybe if we can't make paths truly simple we
>shouldn't worry about simplifying them even a little.
>
>IMO the only way to make them truly simple is to reduce paths like
>gcc/debug/optimization-on to mangled names like "gdo".

Or hash the directory name and only have something like:

gcc/1234567/...

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq