From: Tom St Denis <tstdenis@ellipticsemi.com>
To: Fabian Cenedese <Cenedese@indel.ch>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: reduce compilation times?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <474D650B.3050106@ellipticsemi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20071128133240.01d41350@localhost>
Fabian Cenedese wrote:
>>> Splitting C files is different to splitting C++ files or splitting Java files,
>>> Fortran, Ada, ObjC, ....
>>>
>> In the case of C++, you can just put each method of a class in a separate .C file. Provided they all include a .H file which defines the class prototype it's ok.
>>
>
> The problem may not be the .cpp but the .h files. If I add a new member
> or method all files of this class need to be rebuilt. With the independent
> functions in C this may be easier to do. But still, if everything is rebuilt
> then it doesn't matter how many files you spread your code over.
>
> Of course from maintenance point of view splitting files is good though
> I maybe wouldn't go down to function level, more like class level.
> Otherwise the bad overview in the file is just transferred to the project
> level.
>
That's no different than in C where you change a struct, union, or enum
(or other macros).
But most of your re-compiles will be after changing code not definitions
or prototypes. And even if it didn't save compile time [which it will]
it still makes code more maintainable.
As I said in my first post on the subject, there is no "hard set" rule
about when to refactor. If your class has 3 methods and is 75 lines of
code, it's probably better to have it all organized in one unit/file.
But if your class has 15 methods, and requires 1500 lines of code,
you're probably better off refactoring it.
Libraries are different from applications in this sense. In a library,
it usually makes sense to factor at the function level as you get a
better chance to smart link (as well as the other development
benefits). This doesn't strictly apply to C++ I suppose (well it may if
nothing calls a method), but it definitely does to C.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-28 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-28 7:57 Duft Markus
2007-11-28 12:01 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 12:28 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 12:49 ` Fabian Cenedese
2007-11-28 13:03 ` Tom St Denis [this message]
2007-11-28 12:52 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 13:17 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 13:40 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 13:51 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 13:59 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 15:51 ` John (Eljay) Love-Jensen
2007-11-28 13:30 ` Ted Byers
2007-11-28 12:12 ` John (Eljay) Love-Jensen
2007-11-28 12:31 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 12:39 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 12:54 ` John (Eljay) Love-Jensen
2007-11-28 12:18 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 13:09 ` Ted Byers
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-28 16:06 J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 16:16 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 16:34 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-28 18:18 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 13:56 Duft Markus
2007-11-28 14:35 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-29 0:23 ` Tim Prince
2007-11-28 13:25 Duft Markus
2007-11-28 13:26 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 12:36 Duft Markus
2007-11-27 16:07 J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-27 16:19 ` Brian Dessent
2007-11-27 16:26 ` J.C. Pizarro
[not found] ` <5abcb5650711270804o171e1facr565beec70314af75@mail.gmail.com>
2007-11-27 16:41 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-27 16:46 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-27 17:16 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-27 17:46 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-27 18:26 ` Wesley Smith
2007-11-27 19:35 ` NightStrike
2007-11-27 19:41 ` John (Eljay) Love-Jensen
2007-11-27 19:49 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 9:19 ` Brian Dessent
2007-11-28 12:07 ` Tom St Denis
2007-11-28 12:35 ` Brian Dessent
2007-11-27 17:44 ` Vladimir Vassilev
[not found] ` <998d0e4a0711271310k657b791cy6ad5cc5721105f4c@mail.gmail.com>
2007-11-27 22:30 ` J.C. Pizarro
2007-11-27 10:04 mahmoodn
2007-11-27 11:11 ` Andrew Haley
2007-11-27 11:15 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-27 11:30 ` Andrew Haley
2007-11-27 12:20 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-27 12:25 ` John Love-Jensen
2007-11-27 15:27 ` Tim Prince
2007-11-27 14:07 ` Andrew Haley
2007-11-28 9:01 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-28 12:11 ` John (Eljay) Love-Jensen
2007-11-30 9:15 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-30 13:33 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-27 15:48 ` Sven Eschenberg
2007-11-27 16:27 ` Andrew Haley
2007-11-27 18:51 ` Sven Eschenberg
2007-11-27 19:21 ` Andrew Haley
2007-11-27 20:43 ` Sven Eschenberg
2007-12-01 12:20 ` mahmoodn
2007-12-03 16:14 ` Andrew Haley
2007-12-04 11:23 ` mahmoodn
2007-12-04 12:19 ` Tom Browder
2007-12-05 7:44 ` mahmoodn
2007-12-05 10:24 ` Tom Browder
2007-12-05 10:29 ` mahmoodn
2007-11-27 13:48 ` John Love-Jensen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=474D650B.3050106@ellipticsemi.com \
--to=tstdenis@ellipticsemi.com \
--cc=Cenedese@indel.ch \
--cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).