Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

cb_release_type and GCV's

<< < (2/6) > >>

Jenna:

--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on December 29, 2012, 11:18:03 am ---
--- Quote from: thomas on December 29, 2012, 10:10:16 am ---The correct thing to use would be e.g. $#cb.cflags or $#cb.build_flags.

--- End quote ---
OK - but what path do you set then? A GCV w/o a valid default field entry, maybe a path, is flagged as invalid.

--- End quote ---
That's not 100% correct.
The base-path is flagged as invalid, that was introduced to avoid noise about empty GCV's (if I remember correctly), but just using the cflags or whatever, without a valid base-path works fine.
So $(#cb.cflags) seems to be the most natural way to use a GCV here.

MortenMacFly:

--- Quote from: jens on December 29, 2012, 02:26:36 pm ---So $(#cb.cflags) seems to be the most natural way to use a GCV here.

--- End quote ---
If it is really that simple to make you happy - go ahead. I thought you want to change the whole thing. I don't mind if we use the a member like ".cflags" instead. If the latter makes it more clear - do a global search and replace in *.cbp files and go for it.

The question is, what does C::B ask you to setup? I believe it will ask you to setup the "CB" variable and not cb.cflags. So it is still unclear to the user what needs to be done. IMHO even more unclear than it is now... or if renaming from "cb_release_type" to "cb_cflag" (note the underscore). Its not nice, but now people ask at least what they need to do - exactly what the GCV concept is for. With "cb.cflags" I guess most people will set it to "anything" to silence the message. If we find a way to avoid such mistakes, too - that would be nice.

Biplab:
Is it too difficult to use few mouse clicks to add -g or -O2 at Project Build Options?

A GCV for this purpose is an overkill and confuses a lot of peoples. In my opinion this GCV is unnecessary and should be removed.

thomas:

--- Quote from: Biplab on December 30, 2012, 11:22:37 am ---Is it too difficult to use few mouse clicks to add -g or -O2 at Project Build Options?
--- End quote ---
Not for me, because I've got both of them enabled system-wide anyway  8)

Dunno, I'm not bothered either way. Maybe an environment variable would do, too (instead of a GCV). You can set it if you want, and otherwise, nothing will happen.

But I don't see any hindrance of simply setting -g -O2 in the project by default, either. Really, this works fine. There's no compelling reason not to optimize and having debug symbols. Not with GCC, anyway.

MortenMacFly:

--- Quote from: Biplab on December 30, 2012, 11:22:37 am ---Is it too difficult to use few mouse clicks to add -g or -O2 at Project Build Options?

--- End quote ---
Yes, if you think about the whole C::B workspace with ~30+ projects. Its not just "a few" mouse clicks then. This was the actual driver for doing that. The GCV is actively applied to all projects, including tools, contrib plugins and so on...


--- Quote from: thomas on December 30, 2012, 06:02:42 pm ---But I don't see any hindrance of simply setting -g -O2 in the project by default, either. Really, this works fine. There's no compelling reason not to optimize and having debug symbols. Not with GCC, anyway.

--- End quote ---
Well C::B will complain then, at least.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page