On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Chris Recoskie <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just curious: What about the standard make?
Is it kept?!
Any ideas for incremental build support, e.g. calling "make resource.o" when it is saved instead of calling the incremental make target?
Greetings, Jens
This is a prime example of the kind of feature which is hard to do in a generic way in order to support command line builders. How do we know what target to actually build? On some platforms it will be .o by convention, on others, .obj. In theory, especially with a standard makefile where the user is able to specify whatever naming scheme they wish, there is no real way to know what the right answer is.
I think that there could be for example a special tool in the standard make toolchain which would define the command and output path and extension. It should be probably an addition and not involved with the make builder running "make all" (is there any tool defined for standard build now?). It should be probably sufficient for most cases when all a user wants is to verify that the file compiles. It would be also nice if the produced object was properly compiled and put in proper place as from "make all" externally-incremental build, to participate in calculating dependencies and so on. Perhaps some advance scanner discovery could provide basic functionality for that, letting the worms out of course.
Andrew
For building and cleaning selected files, we were more or less forced to rely on the internal builder, because it knows what outputs are derived from which inputs. We can then ask it to execute all build steps required to build the targeted file.
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
