Like others, Incremental was never very reliable and I only use it sporadically when I want to create a PBD for a single PBL (create runtime library). That's when incremental is used.

I don't know if it has improved, but with our applications, I'm getting the impression that a Full Build is as fast or faster than the incremental.

We don't use it, there's no gain in time.

my 2cts.

Is this method "safe" to use now?

Back in the days (PB12.5) we used incremental with very varying success.

Sometime the exe-file just resulted in a Windows error, "Has encountered a problem..." and so on.

So we stopped using incremental.

But that was 6-7 years a go, and there would be reason to believe that things has gotten better now?

Codebase: PB2019R2, 150 PBL's, 900 MB of source.

PFC framework

Bjarne

Maritech - Norway

Hi Arnaud;

  The "incremental" build only works if the current PBL's and especially their corresponding PBD's are still located where the Target/Project expects them. If you have moved the PBD's from their "default" location, then the PB IDE and/or PBC external compiler will then automatically default back to a "full Build".

HTH

Regards ... Chris

Incremental tells the compiler to only recompile objects that need to be recompiled, usually because another object that it references was changed after the object in question was last compiled. A full will recompile all objects.

Creating a PBD doesn't involve compiling, it just copies the executable code directly from the PBL file.

It appears that the compiling and generating PBD files are two separate steps. All PBD files get recreated, even if no objects in the PBL were recompiled.