[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cdt-dev] Summit Agenda - Build System questions
- From: Alex Chapiro <achapiro@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:52:32 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b1pre) Gecko/20080907031916 Shredder/3.0b1pre
I don't know how to make a nightly build using just internal builder.
Switching to "make" mode is an easy way to generate make files in order
to launch build from command line. It seems to me important.
Treggiari, Leo wrote:
I was just looking at the current agenda and have some input for a
couple of the Build System questions:
* >> Should we continue to support generating a makefile?
I’m guessing that the unspoken part of this question is whether the
internal builder is sufficient. I can think of a couple of reasons why
it may not be:
1. Certainly in the 3.1 timeframe, the internal builder did not
implement all of the MBS schema attributes that the makefile generator
does. I don’t know how much the internal builder was enhanced in 4.0.
At the least, some significant testing would need to be done using the
existing MBS JUnits and other examples to ensure that the internal
builder does handle all of the model.
2. Generating makefiles supports the ability start with a managed
project and then later decide to convert to a “makefile” project and
maintain the makefile yourself. I’m not sure how important this is,
but it would be a loss of functionality.
What are the reasons for removing makefile generation support? Is
maintaining the support a large burden?
* >> Concurrency Issues
* Deadlocks, deadlocks, deadlocks
* What is the reason most of these are happening? How can the
architecture be changed to help alleviate this?
I looked at this a couple of times some time ago. I believed that the
problem had to do with the indexer getting kicked off before the build
system information for a project was loaded. The indexer asks for
configuration information and then the build system needs to load the
information and somewhere in that process is the deadlock potential.
My thought, at the time, was that we needed some mechanism for
specifying the set of project open tasks and either an explicit
ordering capability, priority settings, …
If we could get the “phone” attendance working, I could attend the
build system discussion on Tuesday or Thursday. I can’t attend on
cdt-dev mailing list