Re: Branches & directories
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Oct 3, 2011, 07:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20111003073456.GA10054@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqaa9ijzt4.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:32:07AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> writes: > > > Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it > > would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work > > for (for most people) little gain. > > Not only little gain, but also important risk: users of this feature > would be likely to spend hours debugging something just because some > files weren't recompiled at the right time. > > If you want to optimize the number of files compiled by "make", then > ccache is your friend. This one is safe.
Yes. Despite my previous message showing what _could_ be done, I do think it's crazy. You should just use ccache.
Speaking of which; does anybody know of a git-aware ccache-like tool? We already have a nice index of the sha1 of each file in the repository (along with a stat cache showing us whether it's up-to-date or not). Something like ccache could avoid even looking in the C files at all if it relied on git's index.
I don't know how much speedup it would yield in practice, though.
-Peff