Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

And just to throw a few cents in of my own, we should make sure that the ErrorParser API is
going to more or less remain as is for the 2.0 before we go and make changes.  I know that
Dave I was looking at making changes in this area, though I _think_ that they were mostly
internal changes and not changes with respect to the discovery and manipulations of which
error parsers are available.
 
Thanks,
 Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Evoy [mailto:sevoy@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:20 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers


Leo,
By all means, let's make this part of a toolchain specification. From the short amount of time I spent in the error parser code area, my impression was that the default behaviour of the core is a best-effort attempt to find the error parser from a list of known parsers. That's why the managed build still has its output parsed even though there is no formal UI support.

Basically, under your proposal the manifest would supply zero or more error parsers to that list through the managed build system. We would need to expose this list to the user through the UI, implying a new property page (or a tab on the managed build property page, or some error parser browse button, or...), a preference page, and a new tab on the new project wizard. Compatibility will not be an issue (from what I can see) since the system just adds error parsers. I would think that at some point, there may be a request for some way to override or remove known parsers, but that can be deferred. The default in the absence of any new definitions is to use the default list, only now the user will be able to reorder or remove some if that is what they want.

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada



"Lott, Jeremiah" <jeremiah.lott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/24/2004 06:03 PM

Please respond to
cdt-dev

To
<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers





This looks good to me.  My only question is about backward-compatability.  What will the behavior be for projects that are already created, but don't have an error parser set?  Also what is the behavior for targets in the extension that don't have any error parsers associated with them?
 
  Jeremiah Lott
  TimeSys Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From:
Treggiari, Leo [mailto:leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:04 PM
To:
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
[cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

I was surprised to learn recently that the CDT Error Parser
functionality is not used in the same manner by the Standard
Make and Managed Make build systems.  From what I can tell:
 
o  Standard Make:
  -  Allows the user to set the default for error parsers to be
     used and in what order in the Window -> Preferences -> C/C++
     -> New Make Projects -> Error Parsers tab.
  -  When a new Standard Make project is created, allows the user
     to modify the default settings for the new project using the
     same UI.
  -  Allows the user to change the settings for the project in the
     project Properties using the same UI.
  -  During a build, uses the project settings to determine which
     error parsers to invoke and in what order.
 
o  Managed Make:
  -  Doesn't do any of the above.
  -  During a build, uses all error parsers and I don't think there
     is any way to control the order.
 
I sent mail to Sean a couple of days ago asking if he was in favor
of me investigating adding the error parser functionality to the
Managed Make build system, and he said OK.  Having investigated
further, I've decided that the Managed Make support should be
implemented somewhat differently.
 
The per-project support should be the same - that is, it can be set
during project creation and changed by editing the project properties.
The difference would be in the project default.  It
seems to me to be more appropriate for each "target" (or "tool
chain") being defined for the Managed Make build system to specify
the default list and order of the error parsers needed by the
"tool chain".  This could be specified by each "tool chain" in the
plugin.xml file where the information for the "tool chain" is
provided (for example, the "binary parser" and the command line
options.
 
Comments?
 
Leo Treggiari
Intel Corp.
 
 

Back to the top