User forums > Nightly builds
The 11 February 2012 build (7789) is out.
oBFusCATed:
Keep in mind that make uninstall is not the most reliable thing in the world. Nor the most easy to use thing in the world!
So it is advised to do one of two things:
1. use a prefix specific for codeblocks, like --prefix=/home/yourusers/software/codeblocks, by doing, so you have an easy uninstall procedure (just delete the directory).
2. make your own packages for your distro, c::b has build in support for debian(-based) and all the rpm based distros (some changes are needed here and there, but they are trivial).
BTW: Can you explain why are you changing something in configure.in and in Makefile.am (explained here: http://ssofroni1982.users.sourceforge.net/dokuwiki/codeblocks-svn-mint )? Why haven't you provided a patch, so we can integrate your changes? (this link is from the irc.freenode.net channel posted by the user _stefanos_ (I guess this is you)).
p.s. also it could be a good idea to use a separate build directory, our build system supports it pretty well (I've not tried it, but this is what people say:)).
stefanos_:
--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on March 21, 2012, 08:25:42 am ---Keep in mind that make uninstall is not the most reliable thing in the world. Nor the most easy to use thing in the world!
So it is advised to do one of two things:
1. use a prefix specific for codeblocks, like --prefix=/home/yourusers/software/codeblocks, by doing,
so you have an easy uninstall procedure (just delete the directory).
2. make your own packages for your distro, c::b has build in support for debian(-based) and all the rpm
based distros (some changes are needed here and there, but they are trivial).
BTW: Can you explain why are you changing something in configure.in and in Makefile.am (explained here:
http://ssofroni1982.users.sourceforge.net/dokuwiki/codeblocks-svn-mint )? Why haven't you provided a patch,
so we can integrate your changes? (this link is from the irc.freenode.net channel posted by
the user _stefanos_ (I guess this is you)).
p.s. also it could be a good idea to use a separate build directory, our build system supports it
pretty well (I've not tried it, but this is what people say:)).
--- End quote ---
Yeah that's my website. Well, I had an issue from the start with many awkward messages about missing macros from
those two files and searched about it on the web. I have found bits and pieces as plausible fixes and assembled
them as one whole solution and managed to make it work; frankly I thought it was a minor bug that had to do
with my system, not with Code::Blocks. I thought it would, could, (should?) have got fixed by now; I didn't know that
still causes building problems so I could report my solution as an official patch for Code::Blocks.
As far as concern the build directory, I have tried it once and I found it irritating with all this switch between
build version and installed version, that is the one I have compiled myself, and the one that comes on Debian
by default. It was based on this irritation that I decided to compile everything myself, which is more or less
an old habit I would say; it helps me stay focus on one thing.
Right now I am at work and cannot really tell what is the cause of my issue. I think tomorrow I will be able to check it,
because today I have a seminar and I won't get home before 22:00, which I will be way too exhausted.
In case I find the time to check it, I will surely let you know.
stefanos_:
--- Quote from: jens on March 21, 2012, 06:43:59 am ---did you really clean your sozrce folder before building, especially remove the +.gch's in c::B's include ? They have moved to another place, but if old ones exist, they will probably be used by the compiler, what can lead to weird crashes.
A fresh svn-checkout is usually the easiest way to avoid such issues.
--- End quote ---
As far as I can see with make distclean, it removes .gch files but to be 100% I have added a find command on my script that searches the entire local repository for precompiled header files and delete them. I am anxiously waiting for it to finish and I will let you know after a few minutes.
Paul_Wortmann:
I think I may have found a small, insignificant bug...
If I highlight just the class name without the double colon "::" all instances of the class name are highlighted, but if I highlight the class name including the double colon, all instances excluding the destructor are highlighted.
It appears that a class name followed by two colons and then any other symbol other than a letter or a number has the same effect.
I am using the 11 February 2012 build (7789) on windows 7.
It also does the same on my Linux machine with build 7899.
ollydbg:
--- Quote from: Paul_Wortmann on March 31, 2012, 08:16:30 am ---I think I may have found a small, insignificant bug...
If I highlight just the class name without the double colon "::" all instances of the class name are highlighted, but if I highlight the class name including the double colon, all instances excluding the destructor are highlighted.
It appears that a class name followed by two colons and then any other symbol other than a letter or a number has the same effect.
I am using the 11 February 2012 build (7789) on windows 7.
It also does the same on my Linux machine with build 7899.
--- End quote ---
The hightlight occurrences feature is implemented in scintilla control, Code::blocks only use this control. So, can you report this bug here:http://www.scintilla.org/
Thank you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version