Jon Stewart on Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:38:58 -0500 (CDT) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [ALACPP] GCC and friends |
> Jon Stewart wrote: > > I've got a slackware 10 box with an encrypted RAID1 for /home, with every > > service shut down except for ssh. So data security and integrity is done. > > Ugh... nothing will kill your compile times more than encrypted RAID. :-( If I find that I'm getting disk-bound, I might throw in a fat wad of RAM. Right now I'm at 256MB on a 900MHz Duron. I'm running reiser 3.6 as my filesystem and a 2.6.7 kernel. The software raid and disk encryption is via the new device mapper way of doing things; cryptoloop seemed pretty scary. I've yet to do any serious profiling as I'm still working on low-hanging fruit (e.g. ccache). Running X is the single biggest thing I can do to kill performance (my graphics hardware sucks). > For the record, I'm increasingly leaning towards Gentoo for C++ > development. Source-based distros avoid that whole mess of "which > version of g++/libstdc++ was it compiled with" behind. Yes, I'm intrigued by Gentoo. I've tried using a couple of the package managers/distros for MacOS X (Fink, darwin ports), but I tend to end up in circular dependency hell. I don't particularly want to use a lot of applications, I want something that's pretty transparent so I can understand it, and I want something that's secure. Slackware has been a good distro for me in those regards. I have a pretty good handle on what my machine is doing. When I feel more comfortable with the build tools, I may move on to Gentoo. > 3.4.1 has anumber of other nice features, including a much better parser > and an actually usable iostreams library (large file support *finally*). Heh. You search engine folks with your large files. > > I'm using subversion for source control (SO much better than CVS). > > I'm partial to arch, but hey, anything is better than CVS. I use SourceSafe at work, and I find that it is no worse than CVS on a day-to-day basis. Which is pretty sad commentary. :-) Subversion seems to have the big 'Mo in the community. When I get to the point where I need better branch development support, then I'll reconsider my options (or if Subversion gets too slow, I'll switch to Perforce). I don't know why, but I always feel reassured when a piece of open source software has good, working Windows support, with a double-clickable installer, and quite a bit of documentation. It was pretty easy to get up and running; so far, so good. > I always like to have a 2nd, good quality compiler. Intel's icc is > apparently available as "free for non-commercial use". I'd get that. Noted. > > Is distcc worth it (I would have to install a cross compiler as my > > other machine is a Mac)? > > Setting up a cross compiler can be a pain, although Dan Kegel as a nice > how-to. That said, depending on the relative power of the other box, > distcc can be a huge win. Yes, I stumbled upon Dan's page. I might have to try his tool out. I just had the native build of 3.4.1 fail on my Mac, so now I am feeling more determined to do this and solve it. If I could get my Mac to help out with linux-x86 builds, that would be a huge educational windfall, whatever the performance benefit. My iMac is roughly the same speed as my linux box. I have a relatively fast Dell laptop wending its way through our IT department. > > Any emacs modules that are must-haves for C++ developers? > > Some standard ones are speedbar, semantic bovinator, folding mode, > doxymacs, EDE, etc. Alternatives to speedbar include ebrowse, ECB (Emacs > Code Browser), OO-Browser, etags, or for the very brave... COGRE. > > There's an EmacsWiki with a pretty comprehensive set of suggestions for > programmers to look at: > > http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/CategoryProgrammerUtils Cool! Thanks for the resource. > If you have ccache and distcc setup, your compiles are quick enough that > you might want to look at flymake. I haven't used it yet as Emacs's > syntax checking goes a long way for me, but it sounds like the coolest > thing: > > http://flymake.sourceforge.net/ Bitchen! I'm probably a little underpowered for that currently, but maybe for the laptop. > > What about build tools, e.g. make? Am I still best off with make, due > > its ubiquity and simplicity, > > Make + autoconf/automake is probably the right way to go. > > > or can ant/bjam/custom python scripts/whatever offer me more (as > > subversion offers enough more than CVS to justify the upgrade)? > > Honestly, bjam is really not impressing me. I've heard that Ant's > cpptask is getting there, but there is no substitute for a good make. ;-) I've used ant before, and it's cool. But, yeah, not so much with the C++ support. I'm subscribed to boost-users, and their build environment seems to be a frequent source of errors for people. Part of this is a lack of organization, but I can't help but feel that part of it is a reliance on a non-standard build tool. Jon -- Jon Stewart Advanced Los Angeles C++ stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.alacpp.org _______________________________________________ alacpp mailing list alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp