Re: Includes [1] ntdll

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:15:39AM -0800, Jon Griffiths wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On the suspicion that my hacking on header files was causing too many
> files to be rebuilt, I whipped up a quick perl script to identify
> unneeded header files. This series of patches is the result.

Nice stuff, but... where is it?
The most important part, I mean: the perl script ;-)

Note that some removed include files might be needed for different systems,
so some breakage might/may/will follow this patch.
(Gerald Pfeifer will *love* your "nice" work, I'm sure ;-)
But I'd still vote strongly for including it, since it will remove lots of
cruft.

Thanks,

Andreas Mohr

Includes [1] ntdll

[Jon Griffiths]

Hi,

--- Andreas Mohr  wrote:
> Note that some removed include files might be needed for different
> systems,
> so some breakage might/may/will follow this patch.

I deliberately made my script remove only Wines own headers for this
reason. It will not remove system header files. I also manually
checked that nothing within an #ifdef block was deleted. So this
shouldn't cause any problems for other *nices.

If there is an issue it will be with mingw or VC++. But that would
point out an incompatability in our headers with theirs, and that
would be a good thing, IMHO.
> (Gerald Pfeifer will *love* your "nice" work, I'm sure ;-)

I'm happy if Gerald wants to try the patches for beakage before they
are committed...
> But I'd still vote strongly for including it, since it will remove
> lots of cruft.

Yes, its a little crufty as-is. My reasoning is that anything that
reduces my compile times after updates is good, and my laptop takes
quite a while to rebuild Wine, Minimising dependencies helps that.

On a related note, would anyone object to a patch that auto-split
config.h into multiple files during the build process, and changing
makedep to generate dependencies only on the generated config-value
file?

This would be a big win whenever config.h changes. Currently when
config.h changes, 980 files are rebuilt. Using a smarter method would
only rebuild the files that depend on the HAVE_ option that was
changed (which is bound to be a significantly smaller number).

The Linux kernel process does this already, check out
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smart-config.txt for details.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jon

=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

[e-mail]

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com

Includes [1] ntdll

[Robert Shearman]

Jon Griffiths wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- Andreas Mohr  wrote:
> > Note that some removed include files might be needed for different
> > systems,
> > so some breakage might/may/will follow this patch.
>
> I deliberately made my script remove only Wines own headers for this
> reason. It will not remove system header files. I also manually
> checked that nothing within an #ifdef block was deleted. So this
> shouldn't cause any problems for other *nices.

Do the patches take into account that a header might only be included to 
check that an exported function matches the declaration in the header file?

Rob

Includes [1] ntdll

[Jon Griffiths]

Hi Rob,
> Do the patches take into account that a header might only be
> included to 
> check that an exported function matches the declaration in the
> header file?

No, I dont think that case can exist.

Each .c file contains 5-20 or more functions that take flags/structs
etc defined in the header. The same header defines the function too,
so I don't think you'll see this case in practice. However I will
knock up a script to check that every function does include the
header that defines it, an submit a patch for any cases that turn up
(although I don't think there will be any).

Cheers,
Jon

=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

[e-mail]

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Includes [1] ntdll

[Robert Reif]

Jon Griffiths wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> > Do the patches take into account that a header might only be
> > included to 
> > check that an exported function matches the declaration in the
> > header file?
>
> No, I dont think that case can exist.

Look at dxerr8 and dxerr9.

Includes [1] ntdll

[Jon Griffiths]

Hi,
> > > Do the patches take into account that a header might only be
> > > included to 
> > > check that an exported function matches the declaration in the
> > > header file?

I've extended my script to handle this case.

Cheers,
Jon

=====
"Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come;
 Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Live

[e-mail]

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

Includes [1] ntdll

Jon Griffiths wrote:
[Snip]
> Yes, its a little crufty as-is. My reasoning is that anything that
> reduces my compile times after updates is good, and my laptop takes
> quite a while to rebuild Wine, Minimising dependencies helps that.
>
> On a related note, would anyone object to a patch that auto-split
> config.h into multiple files during the build process, and changing
> makedep to generate dependencies only on the generated config-value
> file?
>
> This would be a big win whenever config.h changes. Currently when
> config.h changes, 980 files are rebuilt. Using a smarter method would
> only rebuild the files that depend on the HAVE_ option that was
> changed (which is bound to be a significantly smaller number).
>
> The Linux kernel process does this already, check out
> /usr/src/linux/Documentation/smart-config.txt for details.
>
> Thoughts?

Considering that it takes 6-8 hours to compile on my poor old machine
I would appreciate anything that would speed up the process. I dread
having to do a ./configure. I know you guy's with your multi GHz
machines might say so what, but it would increase your productivity too.

Also before you laugh at my machine. One of the primary reasons for me to
use this machine is that there lots of these older machines out there
(peticularly in the developing world) and I think wine should be useable
on anything that it can.

--

Tony lambregts

and around and around

Includes [1] ntdll

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:20:57PM -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
> Considering that it takes 6-8 hours to compile on my poor old machine

Wow! I thought 1h on my old box was excessive. What kind of machine is that?

Includes [1] ntdll

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:20:57PM -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
> Considering that it takes 6-8 hours to compile on my poor old machine
> I would appreciate anything that would speed up the process. I dread
> having to do a ./configure. I know you guy's with your multi GHz
> machines might say so what, but it would increase your productivity too.

And what about gcc 3.4.x precompiled headers?
That should also be a worthwhile target, considering that (as I mentioned
before) I managed to hit a tenfold compile performance with my program.
> Also before you laugh at my machine. One of the primary reasons for me to
> use this machine is that there lots of these older machines out there
> (peticularly in the developing world) and I think wine should be useable
> on anything that it can.

Indeed! I loathe bloatware! Anything that can be done to reduce wait times
and memory footprint is a very good thing.

Andreas Mohr