RE: [cdt-core-dev] Default Error Parsers was(Re: [cdt-patch] Fix

["Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Sounds like a good idea.
> Is that satisfactory to you Leo ?
> Was the reordering of importance to you ?

As I think I've written to cdt-dev during the last month or so, I found
a few surprises in the base error parser code when implementing the
error parser support dialog box for the managed build system.

I committed to Sean Evoy that I would look into these.  However, none of
these problems are any more important to an Intel integration than to
any other integration that supplies an error parser.  What I need to
know now, is whether an Intel C++ error parser should always return
false when used in CDT 2.0.  I would not suggest making any changes in
2.0 that don't match our long term intentions for the support (which it
sounds like we need to discuss).

For post-2.0 discussion:
1.  What does returning true vs. returning false from an error parser
mean?  
2.  What does the order of the error parsers in the dialog box mean?
The error parser manager appears to ignore the order.
3.  If the order is important, should the error parser manager be
dynamically modifying the order - even for perceived performance
reasons?
4.  If the order is important and performance is important, should the
user have the option to say whether to specify the order or leave the
order up to the error parser manager?

Regards,
Leo


-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-core-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-core-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alain Magloire
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:59 PM
To: cdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-core-dev] Default Error Parsers was(Re: [cdt-patch]
Fix

> 
> I think we can find a common ground in this issue. Now the first
"true" 
> return means: "this parser is a winner, stop parsing". We can modify 
> this behavior just a bit: "this parser is a winner, but let other 
> parsers also parse this error record". This is just a couple of lines
in 
> code and seems not to be dangerous.
> 

Sounds like a good idea.
Is that satisfactory to you Leo ?
Was the reordering of importance to you ?


_______________________________________________
cdt-core-dev mailing list
cdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-core-dev