Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status

[James Blackburn <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 24 June 2010 19:11, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, James Blackburn
> <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 24 June 2010 18:56, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I certainly agree with that. If we had someone in there fixing these
>>> bugs, which as you mention have been there since 6.0 and I think maybe
>>> longer, then I'd have a different opinion, at least for the cases
>>> Chris mentions where there is no pre-existing build files and where
>>> make is not readily available (which isn't that many platforms any
>>> more).
>>
>> I think Chris is on the ball in that this is somewhere we want to be
>> eventually. As the build model feeds both the makefile generator and
>> the internal builder, I've been focussing on getting the makefile
>> builder right for my users.  As it stands there are some thorny
>> platform build integration issues we need to overcome to make it
>> 'seamless'.
>
> James correct me if I'm wrong, but the build model does not generate
> the build dependencies does it? I thought that came from the gcc
> compiler itself. At least it did a long time ago. It's the build
> dependencies that I worry about and what would lead to most build
> quality issues. If I change a header file, I want a guarantee that all
> the source files that read that header file get rebuilt.

Yes, you're right. I guess as a fall-back the the internal builder
could generate and use the dependency list as make does.