Re: [Compilercache-general] Hmm, an idea came up my mind...

[Robert M. <rob...@de...>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Erik Thiele wrote:
> i just think that the cost-benefit ratio is very very bad for things
> like that. and after all, you don't really want to manually tweak the
> cache and erase files for old compilers or stuff like that. you just
> want everything to silently work without thinking about it. so even if
> you COULD remove the files generated from deleted compilers, you
> probably wouldn't do it, would you?

You're making the mistaken assumption that just because you have a newer
version of the compiler, the old one is no longer used. This is not the
case. It is perfectly legitimate to have multiple gcc versions
installed. You end up with multiple directories in
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/ such as 2.95.4, and can use command line
parameters to gcc to switch compiler versions. This is perfectly
legitimate and useful if you're transitioning to GCC 3. Some programs
don't build with GCC 3, some need to, and it's better not to build
some with it (C++ is less efficient in 3 apparently) and the resulting
.o files are different from both compilers. So there is a good argument
for supporting hashing in the the compiler version to the file or
filename, or just switching directory depending on compiler.

> cu
> erik

Regards,
Rob