whynot write code in stdafx.cpp?

[Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\)]

Thanks in advance for answering this question.

[Nishant Sivakumar]

With what purpose?

--
Regards,
Nish [VC++ MVP]
http://www.voidnish.com
http://blog.voidnish.com
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <eg***********@nospam.invalid> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Thanks in advance for answering this question.

[Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]]

Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:

Thanks in advance for answering this question.

Convention, pure and simple. There's really no reason to have a
stdafx.cpp - if there's a central source file that contains code that will
rarely change, there's nothing wrong with using that as the PCH builder.

The reason for the convention is just that - PCH building is expensive, and
typically you should only put things in your "stdafx.h" that rarely or never
change. Using a non-empty source file as the PCH builder means that you'll
rebuild the PCH file unnecessarily every time the code in that file changes
even if none of your #includes changed.

-cd

[HOTDOG]

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" wrote:

Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:

Thanks in advance for answering this question.

Convention, pure and simple. There's really no reason to have a
stdafx.cpp - if there's a central source file that contains code that will
rarely change, there's nothing wrong with using that as the PCH builder.

The reason for the convention is just that - PCH building is expensive, and
typically you should only put things in your "stdafx.h" that rarely or never
change. Using a non-empty source file as the PCH builder means that you'll
rebuild the PCH file unnecessarily every time the code in that file changes
even if none of your #includes changed.

-cd