User forums > Using Code::Blocks

Why doesn't CodeBlocks turn on debugging when I wanna compile a single file?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Ceniza:
How many times have people asked for this specific feature?

Morrrrrten: you say that there are many reasons. Don't you think it would be nice to make a list of those reasons and classify them somehow? It could be a good starting point (a guide if you prefer) to implement it someday. It would be good to put that list somewhere else, like the wiki, so it does not get lost so easily.

BTW: Hi, long time no sprechen :)

MortenMacFly:

--- Quote from: Ceniza on March 03, 2010, 07:44:43 pm ---How many times have people asked for this specific feature?

--- End quote ---
I know, but you should also guess that it will be quite complex and blew the code a lot.

I personally follow a different strategy: Do not allow single file compilation (without a project) at all and probably have a one-click project setup. But I am aware that there are objections.

In addition: As you know, obfuscated works hard on a new debugger framework. Probably it's better to notify him that there would be such "need" by some people. I guess he can estimate quite well the additional effort needed for his refactoring work.

oBFusCATed:

--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on March 04, 2010, 06:44:35 am ---I personally follow a different strategy: Do not allow single file compilation (without a project) at all and probably have a one-click project setup. But I am aware that there are objections.

--- End quote ---
+1


--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on March 04, 2010, 06:44:35 am ---In addition: As you know, obfuscated works hard on a new debugger framework. Probably it's better to notify him that there would be such "need" by some people. I guess he can estimate quite well the additional effort needed for his refactoring work.

--- End quote ---
Not sure if this is hard, can I get the path to the resulting executable easily?

thomas:
Single file compilation was the worst ever feature to be included. Not so much because it is bad per se, but because it is causing wrong expectations and this is the source of a million requests.
Such as, people don't get it that you can't debug a single file without a project. Of course, at first sight there seems to be no obvious reason why you shouldn't be able to.

Ceniza:

--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on March 04, 2010, 06:44:35 am ---I personally follow a different strategy: Do not allow single file compilation (without a project) at all...

--- End quote ---
-1

Dear forum,


What a'butt having dummy projects by default? Something similar to what happens in Delphi. You just say: I want a new Form, and voilà! There is a dummy project, a dummy .pas file and a dummy .dfm file. You do not even need to save any of them in order to test and debug anything you want. If you like it, you can save it anywhere you want afterwards, but if you do not, it is almost like if nothing had happened (there may be a .exe created somewhere which is most likely to be overwritten by the next 'dummy' test).

Morrrrrrrrrrrten: is that more or less, kind of, approximately, nearly what you mean by "one-click project setup"?

In any case, that also has a drawback: C::B's default behavior is to "save before compiling". Of course you need to save the file somewhere to feed the hungry compiler easily, let it chew the file for a while and wait until it spits that precious object file. It would be lovely if for such a 'dummy' project a "save to temporary file and do not bother the user" could be implemented.

Another nice thing of such an implementation is that you can easily add extra dummy files to the dummy project, yet you do not need to save them in order to compile them all, link them together and run (and even debug) the resulting executable.

Waiting for you complaints.

mvg,

Me.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page