Hi Delicia,
> Would it be a 'not-so-wise' idea for me to make
a hack in 3.0.2?
In case you are
interested in “incremental” behavior only for the pre/post build
steps, then it might not be very difficult to modify the 3.0 branch to support
it, although if you want to take advantage of the “incremental”
behavior for all MBS properties then it might be easier to migrate to 3.1.
From the MBS perspective migration
should not be a problem since the 3.1 MBS schema is actually the extended 3.0
one, so all 3.0 integrations should work with 3.1 as well.
Mikhail
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Delicia
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006
9:42 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cdt-dev] Re:
Dependencies for post-build step
I'm using an earlier release - CDT version 3.0.2
Looks like it's been fixed on the main branch (and 3.1?)
Would it be a 'not-so-wise' idea for me to make a hack in
3.0.2?
I guess I should consider migrating to 3.1
Is there some article/documentation on what I need to
consider/take care of while migrating?
(I looked on eclipse.org/cdt but couldn't find it).
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:06 +0400
From: "Sennikovsky, Mikhail" <mikhail.sennikovsky@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Dependencies for post-build step
To: "CDT General developers list."
<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<B868AC247BCBC441B1B4F378A325E47D49773B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Delicia,
What CDT version are you using?
I do not get a full rebuild when I modify a post-build step with the CDT
sources from HEAD.
Mikhail
________________________________
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Delicia
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:28 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cdt-dev] Dependencies for post-build step
Hi,
I have a managed make C project (executable), which has successfully
built.
I make a small modification to the post-build step and get:
**** Full rebuild of configuration Debug for project CDT_hello ****
make -k clean all
Shouldn't the post-build step be "incremental", and not do a clean
rebuild?
I looked at the generated makefile, it has:
# All Target
all: CDT_hello.exe
# Tool invocations
CDT_hello.exe: $(OBJS) $(USER_OBJS)
.....
.....
$(MAKE) --no-print-directory post-build
post-build:
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shouldn't it rather be:
all: CDT_hello.exe post-build
# Tool invocations
CDT_hello.exe: $(OBJS) $(USER_OBJS)
.....
.....
post-build: CDT_hello.exe
....
Also, "post-build" is listed as a SECONDARY target, not sure on the
implications of this part.
Thanks,
Delicia.