OSDev.org

I'm not arguing it, i'm rather surprised why yet another build system with a database, requiring osxfuse to be installed (i'm not kidding) and then instrumenting compiler calls instead of reusing what compiler could tell. It's probably faster, but ninja is fast without all that.

dozniak wrote:perhaps library files and other binaries.

Tup keeps track of all of that and more. I've seen it rebuild things after a change to my environment variables!

Solar wrote:And while a commendable effort, it is still being educated guesswork.

I prefer a build system that guesses too many things are dependencies over one that guesses not enough (or none at all).

Solar wrote:The -M options are making the compiler tell what it's doing, with regards to header files.

Sure, but that only works for GCC, and you still have to add those rules to your makefile. Tup can do this for any tool you want to automate, and it does it automatically.

Octocontrabass wrote:I prefer a build system that guesses too many things are dependencies over one that guesses not enough (or none at all).

I prefer a build system that builds the right things -- not too much and not too little. My goal is not to have a build that makes me wait an extra 2 minutes to rebuild the entire object list each time. Like I said earlier, I use make very frequently in my workflow and execute `make xxx` just to check my typing far more frequently than I execute the code to check the logic. tup does not sound like a good fit for that kind of workflow to me.

Also, for the record, I have nothing against tup -- I never heard of it before you mentioned it. Your last comment is a pretty big deal for me, and I know how I work.

eryjus wrote:... I use make very frequently in my workflow and execute `make xxx` just to check my typing far more frequently than I execute the code to check the logic. tup does not sound like a good fit for that kind of workflow to me. ...

tup looks like a really good fit for that. It runs faster than make more often than not (and "never" slower), and would speed that process up for you.

- Monk

Or ninja, it's probably even faster without those unnecessary rebuilds when your elapsed time changes or whatever else in the environment. (ENV VARS, man, so if you do a cd, the bash will change env var for PWD, does it mean tup will rebuild??)

eryjus wrote:Like I said earlier, I use make very frequently in my workflow and execute `make xxx` just to check my typing far more frequently than I execute the code to check the logic.

I don't think I've ever tried, but the website briefly mentions that tup can do this too.

dozniak wrote:ENV VARS, man, so if you do a cd, the bash will change env var for PWD, does it mean tup will rebuild??

Tup is smarter than that.

Octocontrabass wrote: Tup is smarter than that.

Nothing about env vars in that page.