Anyone remembers why we need our own cpp implementation, instead of simply using cpp/gcc -E?
It is faster. Mucher faster. Using cpp/gcc -E needs to fork a new process for example.
And then of course using "gcc -E" would possibly cause a GPL violatation. Not that it would matter very much if wrc and friend were GPL:ed.
Obviously any GPL claim would be absurd as we discussed to death in the great licensing flamewar but still.
On December 8, 2002 03:27 pm, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
It is faster. Mucher faster. Using cpp/gcc -E needs to fork a new process for example.
What?!? You got to be kiddin', right? If you can measure any difference in build time between the forking gcc -E and using wpp I'll give you a dollar in small change.
On Linux process creating is extremely fast, and we do fork 1000s of processes while building wine, this sort of argument is just silly.
By the same rationale I suggest having a complete copy of gcc, ld, nm, and whatever tools we use while building wine.
So no, if speed is the only argument, I say we get rid of it: it's not worth maintaining a fraction of all that additional code.
And then of course using "gcc -E" would possibly cause a GPL violatation. Not that it would matter very much if wrc and friend were GPL:ed.
WTF are you talking about?!? How did you figure this one out? Really, this is simply false, you can fork GPL programs all you want, and cause no GPL violation.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Patrik Stridvall