On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Tim E. Real wrote:
> On December 12, 2010 06:26:00 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> >> Other than these, I will try to get the translations system integrated
>> >> into cmake. We will probably need to update the translations document
>> >> and the webpage too.
>> > Another idea: Shall we compile the different bits of muse (widgets,
>> > arranger, instruments, mixer, ...) each as shared libraries?
>> > It won't make much of a difference for the users, but it would
>> > decrease the recompilation time significantly for us, as the linker
>> > won't have to gather 50MB of binaries on each recompilation. Thoughts?
>> Is there any opposition to the above change? Yes, no, no clue, I don't
> Wow, don't think I've ever built something like that.
> So in the end, it's still just a monolithic exe, but built with .so objects?
> I'm all for reducing compilation time, if you are sure this will help.
> Any drawbacks - at all?
> Other Opinions...?
The idea is to have the different bits compiled into their own
internal library, so when you make a change in the arranger, you will
only need to recompile libarranger.so.
Actually, I once made this change in my test tree but accidentally
that got erased. It's not too hard to reimplement though. I can't
think of any drawbacks, it was working just as expected.