Hi Sean and Chris:
We have been using the ManagedBuilder for our
application and we thought a "Command Summary" would be a good feature too, so
we went ahead and implemented it.
Instead of creating one Summary page for all
commands, we spilt the summary based on the Compiler options and the Linker
options. When the user clicks on the top-level Compiler item or
the Linker item, we show the Summary page. I attached a screen
snapshot to show you what I mean. We felt that dividing it by Compiler and
Linker is more logical since this is the way you see the commands in the
makefile.
Our Summary pages provide round-trip
editing. The only problem occurs when an Additional Option (i.e., and
option that is not in the predefined option list) is entered in the Command
Summary. The software does not know which category to place the option
in. To resolve this, we placed any undefined options in the Miscellaneous
page.
Eclipse/CDT is great for our application, so we are
happy to contribute back. We can send you the code for this if you
like.
We have also implemented code to compile a single
file (as opposed to always doing a complete build) if anyone is interested in
that.
Regards,
Mike Charls
BitMethods
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:34
AM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change
to String option command generation.
That sounds good. I will get
back to you after I fuel up on some coffee with some pointers on where to
start.
Sean Evoy Rational
Software - IBM Software Group Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
I agree with respect to the round-tripping. It
would be nice, but isn’t what I would call essential. Certainly not the
kind of thing we should be focusing on right now when there are so many more
important things to do. I could start
taking a look at the summary page stuff part time if you want to get me
started. It would be nice to start getting TI involved in contributing
more actively.
___________________________________________ Chris Recoskie Software Designer IDE
Frameworks Group Texas
Instruments, Toronto -----Original
Message----- From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sean
Evoy Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:24 PM To:
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to
String option command generation.
Minus the round-trip
part, I wanted to provide a summary page that would aggregate all the option
settings together and display it to the user back in 1.2. There is even a
skeletal "summary" option page ready to go. The problem of updating the
summary page in response to UI events was a bit more complex than I had time
to deal with back then. The complexity is still there, but I haven't thought
about it in a while and it might not be all that bad with enough time to do
the job right. If you guys at TI are interested in doing this, let me know and
maybe I can point you in the right direction.
I
can state with certainty that round-tripping is going to be virtually
impossible given the current architecture.
Sean Evoy Rational
Software - IBM Software Group Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"Treggiari, Leo"
<leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by:
cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/03/2004 02:35 PM
|
To
| <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [cdt-dev]
Suggested change to String option command
generation. |
|
Regarding round-trip editing and Visual Studio. Visual C++
used to support that, but hasn't since Visual Studio .NET. I don't know
if they gave it up because they didn't think it was used by many people, or
because it was "too hard". Visual C++ still does display the entire
command line and has an edit box for "Additional
Options".
Regards, Leo
-----Original Message----- From:
cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Chris Wiebe Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:27 PM To:
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String
option command generation.
> As a related topic, something we
at TI were thinking of doing sometime > down the road was extending the
"catch all" box so that it would show > the full command line string
that would be passed to the tool (i.e. it > would pick up the output of
all the other options based on their states) > so that the user a) could
actually see everything that would be passed > to the tool and in what
order, and b) so in theory the user could edit > whatever they wanted in
that box and theoretically have it parsed back > and reflected in the
other options in the GUI (e.g. if you turned on the > symbolic debug
checkbox, and then in the "full command to tool" box you > removed the
-g flag, then the symbolic debug checkbox would get >
unchecked).
This is a great idea, especially the round-trip editing
which is very nice to have. I believe MS Visual Studio does this as
well...
Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ cdt-dev
mailing
list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev _______________________________________________ cdt-dev
mailing
list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
|