Talk:Precompiled header

Too technical?
Could someone list what they think is too technical? —kotepho 2006-03-19 18:47Z 
 * This article looks ok to me but then I'm a programmer, so it all makes sense to me. Not sure why the article itself is flagged as needing an expert, all the info looks correct. -Mloren 07:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an ok article, although for some reason it insists more on the problems than the advantages. Someone who does not know how to program would not understand it though.  The word compile is not explained even.  --Jackaranga 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes I made
Just made some changes to the article to (hopefully) improve the grammar, clarity and especially to make it more accessible to non-technical users. The final sections are specific to the compilers and I am afraid are beyond me (while I am a programmer, I am not a programmer of C or C++). I have tagged it for attention of a C/C++ expert who can with any luck improve the later sections. Mr Weeble Talk Brit tv 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy?
The comment: "there is a chance for slowing down compilation if too much unused code is contained into the headers" seems innacurate to me, and I would like to see some data supporting/define the cases where this would occur. In my experience, I have never seen or worked on a project where this is the case. And, apart from pathelogical cases designed specifically to achieve this goal, it's hard for me to even imagine a scenario that wouldn't benefit compilation speed-wise from using precompiled headers (ie 1 file that uses all the info in the PCH and then 1000 files that use 1 decalration from the PCH).

Secondly, "the results of subdividing the source code are often far better than one could possibly achieve with precompiled headers", doesn't make sense to me. PCHs and dependency reduction are two orthogonal methods of achieving compilation time speedup. If you take your perfectly subdivided code and apply PCHs properly, your (non-pathelogical) project will compile faster (and vice versa). --Greysphere 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge of 20070629
Some rv performed. Rationale: Rjgodoy 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to merge newer version (which explicits that "stdafx.h is  generated by Microsft Visual Studio IDE wizards") with previous one (from which some information was removed). Result:
 * Keep original paragraph, avoid 2nd person
 * Restore third paragraph, which was partially merged with second one. Information kept from both versions.


 * Well... phrase "Since many C/C++ source files for Windows programs include stdafx.h, making small changes in it means the entire project needs to be recompiled. Consequently, few errors in stdafx.h can cause a lot of errors in the rest of the project." doesn't have anything to do with stdafx. Its common property of precompiled headers. So it should be moved out of stdafx section or deleted


 * phrase "GCC's approach is similar to these of VC and compatible compilers, despite of header files' not having pseudo-standard names. GCC can precompile any header," totally untrue. VC++ doesnt rely on any names and can precompile any file you want. See /Yu copiler option. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs)


 * I agree. Rjgodoy 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did anone do this then? --Lendorien 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was talking about and Necator was talking about . Rjgodoy 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

December '07 Changes
I thought the overview in particular was very long-winded and confusing so I rewrote it to be clearer and more consistent with the main page on header files and removed the paragraph criticising the use of prefix headers and/or a project-wide stdafx.h because (a) it's a style issue and (b) it isn't relevant to the topic of this page. I also added a new page about prefix headers, which are often confused with pre-compiled headers (not least because prefix headers are usually pre-compiled, and not all compilers support multiple pre-compiled headers per source file). Finally I removed the tag about needing a C/C++ expert. The article looks OK to me, broadly speaking, and I am an experienced C, C++ and Objective-C developer. Ajhoughton (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article has been listed for cleanup since 2007. It could use a little editing to clarify some terms for the layman. The only other real issue I see with it is lack of sourcing. Can someone with background try to find sources for this article? I've assessed it as a start class article. --Lendorien (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)