Bug 30365 - Header file errors => empty tasks
Summary: Header file errors => empty tasks
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: CDT
Classification: Tools
Component: cdt-core (show other bugs)
Version: 2.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux-GTK
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.1   Edit
Assignee: Doug Schaefer CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 39120 39162 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 2875
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2003-01-28 05:33 EST by Johan Walles CLA
Modified: 2006-01-06 14:00 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Example code with suitable problems (390 bytes, application/octet-stream)
2003-01-28 05:36 EST, Johan Walles CLA
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Johan Walles CLA 2003-01-28 05:33:04 EST
If you have a project with a problem in a header file, gcc's output can look like:

In file included from intermediate2.h:1,
                 from intermediate.h:1,
                 from tabort.c:1:
broken.h:1: parse error before `)'

When you turn this into tasks, except for the actual error indication (which is
fine) you create a couple of empty tasks for the lines indicating the #include
sequence.

I would prefer if there was a concept of dependencies between tasks, and that
the #include sequence markers were dependent on each other in the following order:

Task intermediate2.h depends on task broken.c.
Task intermediate.h depends on task intermediate2.h.
Task tabort.c depends on task intermediate.h.
Comment 1 Johan Walles CLA 2003-01-28 05:36:55 EST
Created attachment 3174 [details]
Example code with suitable problems
Comment 2 Alain Magloire CLA 2003-06-24 14:46:47 EDT
*** Bug 39120 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Alain Magloire CLA 2003-06-24 14:48:42 EDT
*** Bug 39162 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Alain Magloire CLA 2003-06-24 14:50:47 EDT
Should be fix in the head branch now.

Any of you folks can give it a spin, and
tell me it solves the issue.

Thanks.
Comment 5 Johan Walles CLA 2003-06-27 05:41:06 EDT
Knowing myself I probably won't be testing this in the near future.

Øyvind, do you think you'll be able to verify the fix and post a comment here
about whether it worked or not?

If not, I'm all for closing this as RESOLVED FIXED anyway.  I promise to come
back and re-open it if I find it is still a problem.
Comment 6 Oyvind Harboe CLA 2003-06-27 05:56:09 EDT
I'm working intermittantly on my C++ embedded project, but I've saved off two 
bug-reports that I'll verify in the next week.



Øyvind

Comment 7 Oyvind Harboe CLA 2003-06-30 07:27:02 EDT
I tried CDT 1.2.0.7 and the output below does not translate correctly into 
tasks. 

Copy & paste from tasks list:



Kind	Status	Priority	Description	Resource	In Folder
	Location
Error			no matching function for call to `CommandContext::
	InfoCmd.cc	firmware/commands	line 7

Output from GCC:


c:\cygwin\bin\bash --login -c "cd /cygdrive/c/e21/workspace/firmware 
&& ../scripts/build.sh" all 
Current directory: /cygdrive/c/e21/workspace/firmware
Setting up build environment with workspace in /cygdrive/c/e21/workspace
Running make
rm -rf output/version.o
mkdir --parents output
-- compiling ./commands/InfoCmd.cc
commands/InfoCmd.cc: In member function `virtual void 
   InfoCmd::executeArgs(char*)':
commands/InfoCmd.cc:7: no matching function for call to `CommandContext::
   getUnit()'
make: *** [output/./commands/InfoCmd.o] Error 1
Comment 8 Johan Walles CLA 2004-01-23 07:13:11 EST
Øyvind, I think what you are seeing is bug 32027.
Comment 9 Doug Schaefer CLA 2004-05-17 16:12:29 EDT
Independent of Øyvind's observations, this bug still appears in 2.0. We do get
markers at the include statements.
Comment 10 Kleo Hapitas CLA 2004-07-07 16:33:43 EDT
PR was targeted to the 2.0 release but not resolved, moving target to 2.1
Comment 11 Alain Magloire CLA 2004-11-24 17:05:36 EST
> Independent of Øyvind's observations, this bug still appears in 2.0. We do 
get
> markers at the include statements.

Yes we do and it is intentional.
Moving this to 3.0 where we will revisit this scheme

Comment 12 Alain Magloire CLA 2005-07-22 21:36:39 EDT
(In reply to comment #11)
> > Independent of Øyvind's observations, this bug still appears in 2.0. We do 
> get
> > markers at the include statements.
> 
> Yes we do and it is intentional.
> Moving this to 3.0 where we will revisit this scheme
> 
> 

not high priority, moving to future.  But we certainly can do a better job
at this
Comment 13 Alain Magloire CLA 2005-09-06 10:53:43 EDT
Returning to the pool.
Comment 14 Doug Schaefer CLA 2006-01-06 14:00:59 EST
Well, the error parsers have been rewritten and the header files are no longer reported anyway, since they aren't really errors. You can always go back to the build console to get this info.