<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Automatic Dependency Management with ElectricAccelerator</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2008/12/15/automatic-dependency-management-with-electricaccelerator/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2008/12/15/automatic-dependency-management-with-electricaccelerator/</link>
	<description>This is your source for private development cloud best practices and technical tips and tricks for Electric Cloud solutions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 01:47:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Melski</title>
		<link>http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2008/12/15/automatic-dependency-management-with-electricaccelerator/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Melski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ecloud.wordpress.com/?p=148#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the suggestion.  I reran my benchmark using g++ -MD and incorporated the results into the table above.  As you can see, it is definitely faster than g++ -MM, but still noticeably slower than ElectricAccelerator&#039;s autodepend feature (about 12% worse in this example).

The other problem with g++ -MD, of course, is that the dependencies lag behind the current sources by one build; with the traditional g++ -MM implementation, the dependencies are regenerated first, so when you actually get to the compile phase of the build, you have good dependency information.  I can imagine ways around that limitation, but they are all pretty clunky.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the suggestion.  I reran my benchmark using g++ -MD and incorporated the results into the table above.  As you can see, it is definitely faster than g++ -MM, but still noticeably slower than ElectricAccelerator&#8217;s autodepend feature (about 12% worse in this example).</p>
<p>The other problem with g++ -MD, of course, is that the dependencies lag behind the current sources by one build; with the traditional g++ -MM implementation, the dependencies are regenerated first, so when you actually get to the compile phase of the build, you have good dependency information.  I can imagine ways around that limitation, but they are all pretty clunky.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hannes</title>
		<link>http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2008/12/15/automatic-dependency-management-with-electricaccelerator/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>hannes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ecloud.wordpress.com/?p=148#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the interesting numbers. I wouldn&#039;t have guessed that makedepend turns out to be slower than g++ -MM.

Have you ever measured g++ -MD (i.e. dependencies generated as a side-effect of compilaton)? That should have similarly low overhead to the autodepend solution, right? It&#039;s more complex and fragile, of course, but for those of us stuck with plain old make it seems like the best method.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the interesting numbers. I wouldn&#8217;t have guessed that makedepend turns out to be slower than g++ -MM.</p>
<p>Have you ever measured g++ -MD (i.e. dependencies generated as a side-effect of compilaton)? That should have similarly low overhead to the autodepend solution, right? It&#8217;s more complex and fragile, of course, but for those of us stuck with plain old make it seems like the best method.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

