|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (still the indexer in CDT 3.0) anyone make it work well? [message #153027 is a reply to message #152952] |
Fri, 02 September 2005 08:23   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zhoufei+eclipse.gmail.com
Yes, You are absolutely right! the keypoint is the java's version, even the
1.4.2_08 doesn't work well. I install several version, finally java 1.4.1
works. Here is its link:j2sdk-1_4_1-windows-i586.exe
http://downloads.planetmirror.com/pub/java-sun/J2SE/1.4.1/wi n32/j2sdk-1_4_1-windows-i586.exe
Good luck every one!
In my opinion: It should be document in the offical distribution.
"Andrew Niefer" <aniefer@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:df7n7c$c99$1@news.eclipse.org...
>I would suggest trying a 1.4 JDK instead.
> We didn't see these same problems while developing the CDT, and eclipse
> 3.1 was designed to use 1.4.
>
> If you are finding the linux works faster than windows (the opposite was
> always true for me) then using a 5.0 JDK could be the reason.
>
> -Andrew
>
> Jiyul wrote:
>> I think indexer dosn't work on windows platform currently.
>> Does anybody use cdt 3.0 on windows platform, plase let me know.
>> In several machine which have windows installation, Indexing is never be
>> done.
>>
>> Does Indexer have some trouble with JDK 5.0 up4? If not, CDT Indexer
>> doesn't work with windows platform.
>>
>> eclipse wrote:
>>
>>>new findings:the same project moved to linux,the indexer working faster
>>>than
>>>in windows!
>>>why??
>>>
>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
>>>
>>>
>>>"eclipse" <zhoufei+eclipse@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:df5o4o$r85$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have report a "bug"
>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
>>>>
>>>>I try to use only one header file in all my project to avoid this
>>>>problem,
>>>>but useless!
>>>>
>>>>anyone make it works smoothly?
>>>>
>>>>thank you guys!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
| Re: (still the indexer in CDT 3.0) anyone make it work well? [message #153068 is a reply to message #153027] |
Fri, 02 September 2005 14:39 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: fireonyoursleeve.hotmail.com
If that link doesn't work try here:
http://java.sun.com/products/archive/j2se/1.4.1/
"eclipse" <zhoufei+eclipse@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df9g8a$fuc$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Yes, You are absolutely right! the keypoint is the java's version, even
> the 1.4.2_08 doesn't work well. I install several version, finally java
> 1.4.1 works. Here is its link:j2sdk-1_4_1-windows-i586.exe
> http://downloads.planetmirror.com/pub/java-sun/J2SE/1.4.1/wi n32/j2sdk-1_4_1-windows-i586.exe
>
> Good luck every one!
>
> In my opinion: It should be document in the offical distribution.
>
>
>
> "Andrew Niefer" <aniefer@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:df7n7c$c99$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>I would suggest trying a 1.4 JDK instead.
>> We didn't see these same problems while developing the CDT, and eclipse
>> 3.1 was designed to use 1.4.
>>
>> If you are finding the linux works faster than windows (the opposite was
>> always true for me) then using a 5.0 JDK could be the reason.
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>> Jiyul wrote:
>>> I think indexer dosn't work on windows platform currently.
>>> Does anybody use cdt 3.0 on windows platform, plase let me know.
>>> In several machine which have windows installation, Indexing is never be
>>> done.
>>>
>>> Does Indexer have some trouble with JDK 5.0 up4? If not, CDT Indexer
>>> doesn't work with windows platform.
>>>
>>> eclipse wrote:
>>>
>>>>new findings:the same project moved to linux,the indexer working faster
>>>>than
>>>>in windows!
>>>>why??
>>>>
>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"eclipse" <zhoufei+eclipse@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:df5o4o$r85$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have report a "bug"
>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=108242
>>>>>
>>>>>I try to use only one header file in all my project to avoid this
>>>>>problem,
>>>>>but useless!
>>>>>
>>>>>anyone make it works smoothly?
>>>>>
>>>>>thank you guys!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.58928 seconds
Home