Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

Hi *,

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Christian Lohmaier
> <lohmaier+libreoffice@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've pushed
> > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378ca38f59518b018fccca8f
> >
> > Note on the Mac-OSX case:
> > The previous check was not to completely disable ccache, but only to
> > check whether --ccache-skip can be used safely. Even with unsuitable
> > versions (like unpatched 2.4 or 3.0) you could use ccache, it was just
> > that objective-c(++) was not cached.
>
> humm... I need to take a closer look... Is that what the USE_CCACHE was for ?

Yes, that also was the only part where this was evaluated.
Current versions of ccache do support the objective-c++ flags, so
there is no need to use --ccache-skip anymore.

The problem was ccache did not support objectve-c++ flags, and had a
argument-corruption bug when --ccache-skip was used. Hence the need
for the check for a patched version that identifies itself as version
2.4_OOo. Its fine to drop this one and also remove the use of
--ccache-skip in the mac-makefile.

> > > This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
> > > was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
> > > This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
> > > case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX
> >
> > The latter is not done for the Mac OSX case when gcc 4.0 is forced,
> > or am I overlooking something?
> if you 'forced' gcc 4.0 via CC= then no there is no automatic ccache
> if 4.0 is 'forced' because you did not specify CC and the gcc
> picked-up is too recent, then yes ccache is used if allowed:

That's not the point is it is

if it's already an alias for ccache, it won't be prefixed with an
additional "ccace"

And that's not the case.
CC is checked for ccache and possibly altered, then gcc version is
checked for mac and it just disregards everything and sets CC no
matter of the previous check.
Same for CXX.

the ccache handling should occur *after* modifying CC/CXX, at least
that would me more logical.

> > I personally would prefer if the heading-comments would use "#" and
> > not "dnl" - any reason why you're using dnl and thus remove any hints
> > on the structure of the checks from the generated configure?
>
> Just mimetic behavior... I have no preference either way....

OK, please  use my preference in future then :-)

ciao
Christian