| RE: [cdt-dev] Change in default include paths |
|
Or at least so the theory goes. We are
currently fighting a bug that makes it hard to shake the default GCC scanner
discovery profile. I’m in the middle of trying to figure out the flow
end-to-end to help Mikhail address this. The latest is trying to get my build output
parser to run on a Makefile project with my toolchain as the only selected tool
chain. No luck, the GCC one runs all the time.
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sennikovsky, Mikhail Hi, Sorry for the delayed response – was
busy with some local stuff here. The “default” built-in include
paths are calculated using the
“org.eclipse.cdt.make.core.ScannerConfigurationDiscoveryProfile”
extension point. A typical Scanner discovery profile usage
is the following: 1. A tool-chain specific scanner discovery profile is defined by
contributing to the
“org.eclipse.cdt.make.core.ScannerConfigurationDiscoveryProfile”
extension point. 2. The profile ID is associated with the tool-chain by specifying the
profile id via the inputType#scannerConfigDiscoveryProfileId or the
toolChain#scannerConfigDiscoveryProfileId attributes. (see the build gnu tool-chain build
fefinitions in the org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.gnu.ui plug-in for the reference
implementation) When the project is being created/loadded
the profile associated with the project/configuration tool-chain is queryied
for the default includes/symbols information. So you will need to perform the two above
steps in order to provide the includes/symbols info specific for your
tool-chain If you do not want the builtin
includes/symbols information to be calculated at all you could simly associate
no profile with your tool-chain (i.e. ommit both of the above steps) Regards, Mikhail From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sheldon Dsouza No not yet i
tried to replace existing include paths in the configuration with my own using
the template mechanism, my include paths were added successfully but the
defaults did not get replaced. On 7/31/07, Torkild
Ulvøy Resheim <turesheim@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote: Hi Sheldon, |