Re: header dependency scanning

From: Alexey Syomichev (asyomichev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 13:10:15

--- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
> Hi On Wednesday 04 May 2005 01:04, Alexey Syomichev wrote:

> > I think I might have a case when caching would be beneficial. I
have a
> > relatively large project living on a relatively slow NFS system.
For a
> > build started from the root of the project, it takes about 3
> > (frustrating) minutes of "...patience..." before the first update
> > action command, 
> 
> Can you try running
> 
> bjam -sHCACHEFILE=cache
> 
> twice. The first invocation should create file 'cache' with results
of header 
> scanning. The second invocation should pick this file. If there's
signigicant 
> difference for your case, I can enable header caching globally.

Cool! I didn't know that caching is still there, only disabled by
default. Ok, the test you suggested showed a change from 2:41 to 2:15.
Doesn't look like a significant improvement to me.

How about the second part of my question? Is there a way to exclude
certain locations from header dependency scanning?

--Alexey