|
Hi Chis:
I do not have a patch right now since we have other
changes from CDT.
However, we can make a patch and send it in a day
or two.
Mike Charls
BitMethods
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:03
AM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change
to String option command generation.
The split approach
per tool makes sense. I might not have expressed it but this was what I
had already been thinking.
I am interested to
take a look and Im sure Sean would be too. Do you have a patch file you
could send?
___________________________________________
Chris
Recoskie
Texas Instruments,
Toronto
-----Original
Message-----
From:
cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Charls
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:50
PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Suggested change
to String option command generation.
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.
----- 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 isnt 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
|
