[Lazarus] instantfpc has moved

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:52:53 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt <michael at freepascal.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:04:37 +1100
> > Alexander Klenin <klenin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 18:56, Mattias Gaertner
> >> <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:
> >>>> Perhaps it is obvious to you, but I'd propose to store the source hash
> >>>> instead of source itself,
> >>>> and include compiler version in said hash. It will not solve unit
> >>>> dependency issue,
> >>>> but still would be an improvement IMHO.
> >>>
> >>> If you know a fast check for the compiler version, feel free to
> >>> implement it. Otherwise this should be optional.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is fpc -v too slow?
> >
> > yes
> >
> > I guess you mean fpc -iW
> >
> > It starts two executables, fpc and ppccpu, so it increases
> > the time of running a simple program more than twice plus it needs
> > more memory. On a normal Linux system this is ok, so it can be done by
> > default.
> 
> You must be joking ?

A bit. I was testing for reactions.


> I don't think this is a good idea.

No, not even the IDE uses the above.

 
> One of the things I liked about instantfpc is that it is fast in case the 
> script already was compiled.

:)

 
> If storing the hash to make comparison faster means that you must start 
> 2 extra executables, it makes the end result slower, which voids the purpose 
> of the whole hashing operation. (aka it is not very clever)
> 
> You can do the hashing in-memory, but I doubt this will give a noticeable speedup.
> The loading time of an executable dwarfs the comparison operation, especially for 
> small scripts.
> 
> And if the purpose is to do dependency checking, I don't see why you would want this:
> 
> a) if the program has changed, it will be recompiled anyway.
> 
> b) if some of the installed units have actually changed behaviour which you think will
>     influence one of your already-compiled scripts, you'll know about it and can clear
>     the cache manually once.
>     in case their behaviour has not changed, there is no point in recompiling them.
> 
> Very little gain for such an invasive change.
> 
> So: please don't do this change.

There is a better way:
Store file age of fpc and ppccpu.

 
> What could be useful is a command-line option to clear the cache for you.

+1

Mattias