[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] TCF 1.0 vs 0.40

Thanks Doug for clarifying.

-- Jeff J.

On 05/01/2012 05:44 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
As of Juno, the CDT no longer depends on TCF (EDC is no longer built),
thus we no longer built TCF and include it with CDT.

The last I left it, I believe, TCF was already flagged to be included with
Juno.

At any rate, this is an issue for the TCF project. CDT is now out of the
loop.

BTW, Lttng probably should have been a bit more formal about their
dependency on TCF. I don't remember them asking if they can use the bits
CDT built. We really did it just for EDC.

Doug.

On 12-05-01 5:06 PM, "Jeff Johnston"<jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

I am confused about the state of TCF.

CDT ships TCF 0.4.0 which was needed by Linux Tools Lttng.

There is work going on for TCF 1.0.  I am not certain whether this is
supposed to be its own project or if it is still under the CDT umbrella.

That said, David Williams is not aware of TCF having applied to be part
of the Juno train as its own project and it is too late for an exception.

Lttng has recently switched to use the new TCF 1.0 APIs, but no one
ships that.

Can the CDT ship new versions of those TCF features (which have
refactored) as part of an upgrade to an existing component?  If no, it
means that Lttng has to revert those changes for Juno M7 and go back to
using TCF 0.4.0 that is still supplied by the CDT's b3aggrcon.

-- Jeff J.
_______________________________________________
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