On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 5:24 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > > Why is this being proposed?
> >
> > Andres is annoyed by the long build time of ecpg, which he has to
> > wait for whether he wants to test it or not. I could imagine that
> > I might disable ecpg testing on my slowest buildfarm animals, too.
>
> This message triggered me to try to teach ccache how to cache
> preproc.y -> preproc.{c,h}, and I got that basically working[1], but
> upstream doesn't want it (yet). I'll try again if the proposed
> refactoring to allow more kinds of compiler-like-things goes
> somewhere. I think that started with people's struggles with GCC vs
> MSVC. Given the simplicity of this case, though, I suppose we could
> have a little not-very-general shell/python/whatever wrapper script --
> just compute a checksum of the input and keep the output files around.
If we're going to go to this length, it seems more straightforward to
just check the .c/.h files into version control, like every other
project that I have such knowledge of.
To be fair, our grammar changes much more often. One other possible
deal-breaker of that is that it makes it more painful for forks to
maintain additional syntax.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
