[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [cdt-dev] Summit Agenda - Build System questions
- From: "James Blackburn" <james.blackburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 01:33:35 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AckR/T8untiOukE6TluYrYKL1euUTwAWG0Kg
- Thread-topic: [cdt-dev] Summit Agenda - Build System questions
I also agree that generating Makefiles is important to support. Even if it becomes more and more deprecated as time goes on. We had issues with the Internal Builder in CDT 4 (that were difficult to reliably reproduce and track down). When the internal builder is the clear winner I'm sure there'll be much less opposition to this move.
> 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.
As an aside this is indeed possible. There are a few bugs in bugzilla which discuss this issue, see the comments in: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=186847
> 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
> > Wednesday.
> > Thanks,
> > Leo
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> cdt-dev mailing list