Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > CodeCompletion redesign
Code Completion & Workspace
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Loaden on May 13, 2011, 09:55:47 am ---Please trying REV7122: "CC: Disable memory pool again, avoid possible crash".
--- End quote ---
That's the version I am using. But I really doubt that's the reason. In the initial (first project) parser run it#s just about ~60000 symbols
Loaden:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on May 13, 2011, 09:56:35 am ---
--- Quote from: Loaden on May 13, 2011, 09:55:47 am ---Please trying REV7122: "CC: Disable memory pool again, avoid possible crash".
--- End quote ---
That's the version I am using. But I really doubt that's the reason. In the initial (first project) parser run it#s just about ~60000 symbols
--- End quote ---
Try to disable symbols browser.
I think now the symbols browser is *NOT* thread safe.
Maybe this is the final reason.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Loaden on May 13, 2011, 11:05:19 am ---Try to disable symbols browser.
I think now the symbols browser is *NOT* thread safe.
Maybe this is the final reason.
--- End quote ---
I'll try, but actually I doubt this will be the reason, too. I am using one parser per WS only, so only one parser feeds the symbol browser. This should not fail and progressing is basically serialised.
I believe it's related to the different set of macros. What happens e.g. if the same wx file is parsed with different #defines? Imagine you have a project (target) using ANSI and one using Unicode. What will be added to the (internal/symbol) tree?
Similar is the case in the sample I provided: static and dynamic linking requires different #defines. All other projects I had in this WS (before stripping it down to what it is now) caused no problems. Just these two.
seb_seb0:
--- Quote from: killerbot on May 12, 2011, 10:49:13 pm ---
--- Quote ---when the "using namespace" clause is defined in the header file, the bug occurs.
--- End quote ---
CC should not fail on that. Agreed, but the only advice I can give you : just don't do this. That is not the intention of namespaces, actually this is killing the entire purpose of namespaces .
See also books of Meyers, Sutter, ...
--- End quote ---
I also agree, but I never pretended I was the perfect programmer :-) . The "using" is actually practical for simple test programs, and it keeps the code more readable IMHO.
However, thanks everybody for the information provided. Now I know where the cause of my problem lies, and I have a way to correct the problem (use full scope qualification).
Sebastien
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version