build-process

I am using Maven in my standalone application, and I want to package all the dependencies in my JAR file inside a library folder, as mentioned in one of the answers here: How can I create an executable JAR with dependencies using Maven? I want my final JAR file to have a library folder that contains the dependencies as JAR files, not like what the maven-shade-plugin that puts the dependencies in the form of folders like the Maven hierarchy in the .m2 folder. Well, actually the current configuration does what I want, but I am having a problem with loading the JAR files when running the

My project directory looks like this: /project Makefile main /src main.cpp foo.cpp foo.h bar.cpp bar.h /obj main.o foo.o bar.o What I would like my makefile to do would be to compile all .cpp files in the /src folder to .o files in the /obj folder, then link all the .o files in /obj into the output binary in the top-level folder /project . I have next to no experience with Makefiles, and am not really sure what to search for to accomplish this. Also, is this a "good" way to do this, or is there a more standard approach to what I'm trying to do? Makefile part of the question This is pretty easy

This question already has an answer here: #include all .cpp files into a single compilation unit? 5 answers Since starting at a new company I've noticed that they use unity cpp files for the majority of our solution, and I was wondering if anyone is able to give me a definitive reason as to why and how these speed up the build process? I would've thought that editing one cpp file in the unity files will force recompilation of all of them. akent Very similar question and good answers here: #include all .cpp files into a single compilation unit? The summary seems to be that less I/O overhead is

The only real use of the --whole-archive linker option that I have seen is in creating shared libraries from static ones. Recently I came across Makefile(s) which always use this option when linking with in house static libraries. This of course causes the executables to unnecessarily pull in unreferenced object code. My reaction to this was that this is plain wrong, am I missing something here ? The second question I have has to do with something I read regarding the whole-archive option but couldn't quite parse. Something to the effect that --whole-archive option should be used while linking

A few years ago, I read the Recursive Make Considered Harmful paper and implemented the idea in my own build process. Recently, I read another article with ideas about how to implement non-recursive make . So I have a few data points that non-recursive make works for at least a few projects. But I'm curious about the experiences of others. Have you tried non-recursive make ? Did it make things better or worse? Was it worth the time? Ville Laurikari We use a non-recursive GNU Make system in the company I work for. It's based on Miller's paper and especially the "Implementing non-recursive make"

How can I limit my post-build events to running only for one type of build? I'm using the events to copy DLLs to a local IIS virtual directory but I don't want this happening on the build server in release mode. Joseph Daigle Pre- and Post-Build Events run as a batch script. You can do a conditional statement on $(ConfigurationName) . For instance if $(ConfigurationName) == Debug xcopy something somewhere FYI, you do not need to use goto. the shell IF command can be used with round brackets: if $(ConfigurationName) == Debug ( copy "$(TargetDir)myapp.dll" "c:\delivery\bin" /y copy "$(TargetDir