Re: "rebase-trigger full"

[mike <mikereape@onetel.com>]

On 25/07/2017 15:29, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 25/07/2017 16:12, mike wrote:
>> On 25/07/2017 11:17, mike wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2017 06:21, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>
>> Thanks very much for that Brian.  That seems to have done the trick.
>> It's solved part of my problems anyway.  However why does rebasing take
>> such a long time?  I would have thought that it would be quite fast
>> using oldschool compile/link/load techniques. I'm not being critical I'm
>> just curious because a long time ago I used to work on stuff like this
>> myself.
>>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> "full" take long as need to rebase from scratch every single dll's.
> It is only needed in case of problems.
>
> If you want to know how many dll's are rebased :
>
> $ rebase -si |wc -l
>
>
> The usual rebase pass is incremental and it is much faster.
>
> Regards
> Marco
>
>
> -- 
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
>
Thank you Marco.  Maybe there are just way more dlls than I ever realised.

Mike

-- 
I *AM* a unique and special snowflake


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple