Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status

[Mike Kucera <mkucera@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Or does it invalidate the indexer's strategy of always sticking with one build configuration?

Mike Kucera
Java JIT Compiler Development
IBM Toronto
mkucera@xxxxxxxxxx

Doug Schaefer ---06/24/2010 05:40:24 PM---That's a great point Chris. Having a different Indexer setting versus build really invalidates the internal build strategy. On

From:	Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	06/24/2010 05:40 PM
Subject:	Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status

---

That's a great point Chris. Having a different Indexer setting versus build really invalidates the internal build strategy.

On Jun 24, 2010 3:12 PM, "Chris Recoskie" <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I believe there is an index-based dependency calculator which the internal
> builder uses. This has some flaws though as well, because it hinges on the
> index contents having been generated for the configuration that you are
> building. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the indexer uses one static
> build configuration by default, so if you switch build configuration from
> say Debug to Release, it might not match what you're building.
>
> In the Debug vs Release case, in all likelihood, your code won't be
> including different headers, so it should work fine for that case 99% of
> the time. The bigger gotcha is if you have multiple configurations that
> target different platforms. Then the set of headers used by each
> configuration is more likely to diverge.
>
> ===========================
> Chris Recoskie
> Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
> IBM Toronto
>
>
> |------------>
> | From: |
> |------------>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |James Blackburn <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx> |
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |------------>
> | To: |
> |------------>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |------------>
> | Date: |
> |------------>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |06/24/2010 02:51 PM |
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |------------>
> | Subject: |
> |------------>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status |
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |------------>
> | Sent by: |
> |------------>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 June 2010 19:11, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, James Blackburn
>> <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 24 June 2010 18:56, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I certainly agree with that. If we had someone in there fixing these
>>>> bugs, which as you mention have been there since 6.0 and I think maybe
>>>> longer, then I'd have a different opinion, at least for the cases
>>>> Chris mentions where there is no pre-existing build files and where
>>>> make is not readily available (which isn't that many platforms any
>>>> more).
>>>
>>> I think Chris is on the ball in that this is somewhere we want to be
>>> eventually. As the build model feeds both the makefile generator and
>>> the internal builder, I've been focussing on getting the makefile
>>> builder right for my users.  As it stands there are some thorny
>>> platform build integration issues we need to overcome to make it
>>> 'seamless'.
>>
>> James correct me if I'm wrong, but the build model does not generate
>> the build dependencies does it? I thought that came from the gcc
>> compiler itself. At least it did a long time ago. It's the build
>> dependencies that I worry about and what would lead to most build
>> quality issues. If I change a header file, I want a guarantee that all
>> the source files that read that header file get rebuilt.
>
> Yes, you're right. I guess as a fall-back the the internal builder
> could generate and use the dependency list as make does.
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev