[distcc] avoiding work

[Martin Pool]

On 30 Jan 2004, "Benjamin S. Scarlet" <bsfdccl0 at greynode.net> wrote:

> Not enough of a reason, no.  It's quite likely that, having just run
> into two (minor) bugs with the current argument processing, my
> perception of the relative value of a better way to process arguments is
> exaggerated.

What tree were they in?  Something of your own, or something that
other people are likely to run into?

> It does seem awkward that distcc must duplicate the work in the gcc
> driver of interpreting gcc's vast collection of arguments.  

Yes, it is.  I had not realized there would be quite so many special
cases.

-- 
Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/attachments/20040203/54c9cb93/attachment.bin