That being said it’s probably a good
idea if we externalize any of these strings in the meantime, since it’s
so easy to do. Most of the committers are not too familiar with localized
versions of the GNU tools, so I would suggest filing a PR with a very specific
list of items that seem to be giving you trouble.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Texas Instruments, Toronto
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005
8:27 AM
To: nicolas.antoniazzi@xxxxxxxxx; CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] managed
build: VCErrorParser patch
Actually, with Java 1.4’s regular
_expression_ parser, it should be possible to make a generic error parser that
can be defined with an extension point. This would make a great enhancement
request. Could you please file one in bugzilla.
Thanks,
Doug Schaefer
Senior Software Developer
QNX Software Systems
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nicolas ANTONIAZZI
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005
8:21 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] managed
build: VCErrorParser patch
Hi,
I'm using this thread to suggest something about localized version of Make.
They have quite the same problem as the Visual Parser.
On localized version of GCC, warnings do not have the name "warning",
but a translated version. Is there something that has been discussed about
thins kind of localisations ?
Would it be possible to create a more Generic Error parser that could resolve
errors/warnings from any kind of language (if translation are described in an
XML file for example) ?
Thanks,
Nicolas.
2005/9/9, Andrew Ferguson <Andrew.Ferguson@xxxxxxx>:
I feel a little bad about sending this one but thought
I'd see what you think.. :)
An old (released) version of our compiler is producing
output intended to conform to the Visual Studio output spec. but failing
because its outputting "Warning" rather than "warning".
I've worked around this by adding a new error parser which relaxes this
condition, but is potentially confusing for the user as an additional error
parser appears in the build settings. I'm thinking it would be
preferable to just have the VCErrorParser tweaked as below.
I realize adapting VCErrorParser for every non-conformant
tool output would not be a good road to go down, but was wondering if this case
is so thin that it might not count as the thin end of the wedge?
Index: VCErrorParser.java
===================================================================
RCS file:
/home/tools/org.eclipse.cdt-core/org.eclipse.cdt.core/src/org/eclipse/cdt/internal/errorparsers/VCErrorParser.java,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 VCErrorParser.java
--- VCErrorParser.java 22 Jul 2005 02:36:06 -0000 1.9
+++ VCErrorParser.java 9 Sep 2005 10:53:13 -0000
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
}
IFile file =
eoParser.findFileName(fileName);
if (file != null ||
eoParser.isConflictingName(fileName)) {
- String desc =
line.substring(firstColon + 1).trim();
+ String desc =
line.substring(firstColon + 1).trim().toLowerCase();
if (file == null) {
desc = "*" +
desc; //$NON-NLS-1$
}
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
|