[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Suggested change to String option command generation.
|
Mike,
Just a heads-up; I used the tool item
in the tree view for setting the command in this release, so I would make
sure that your patch is based on the latest stuff out of the head. We can
always figure out how to make the two uses co-exist, of course.
Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"Mike Charls"
<mcharls@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/04/2004 01:11 PM
Please respond to
cdt-dev |
|
To
| <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [cdt-dev] Suggested change
to String option command generation. |
|
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 -----
From: Recoskie,
Chris
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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 I’m sure Sean would be too. Do you have a patch file you could
send?
___________________________________________
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 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.
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 -----
From: Sean
Evoy
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
"Recoskie, Chris"
<crecoskie@xxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/03/2004 04:44 PM
Please respond to
cdt-dev |
|
To
| <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [cdt-dev] Suggested change
to String option command generation. |
|
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
Please respond to
cdt-dev |
|
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