Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Compiler Framework Redesign

Compiler framework redesign (?)

<< < (3/9) > >>

thomas:
Would that make sense? Different compilers are not options-compatible (except by pure coincidence).

The only really useful thing I could think of is "number of concurrent threads", and even here I am not sure if it wouldn't better be left compiler-specific.

tiwag:
i think this would make perfect sense for a small set of basic options.
the most basic options are
debug / non debug build,
static lib,
shared lib,
console project,
gui project.
(and a few more if we investigate a little ...)

if there could be a set of compiler settings which are translateable through different compilers this would be a great feature, to automatically transfer projects from VC to gcc for example.

rickg22:

--- Quote from: thomas on January 02, 2006, 05:24:09 pm ---Would that make sense? Different compilers are not options-compatible (except by pure coincidence).

--- End quote ---

So that means a project should specify which compiler it has its options set, right? Right now I'm thinking of the problem of multiple-compiler development, i.e. for GCC and MSVC. Currently we need a different project per compiler. Just switching the compiler leaves us with incompatible switches, and was one of my reasons for starting the redesigning forum.

killerbot:

--- Quote from: rickg22 on January 02, 2006, 05:31:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: thomas on January 02, 2006, 05:24:09 pm ---Would that make sense? Different compilers are not options-compatible (except by pure coincidence).

--- End quote ---

So that means a project should specify which compiler it has its options set, right? Right now I'm thinking of the problem of multiple-compiler development, i.e. for GCC and MSVC. Currently we need a different project per compiler. Just switching the compiler leaves us with incompatible switches, and was one of my reasons for starting the redesigning forum.

--- End quote ---
different target

rickg22:

--- Quote from: killerbot on January 02, 2006, 05:33:12 pm ---different target

--- End quote ---

Yes, but look at what Yiannis said about multi configurations here.


--- Quote from: mandrav on August 26, 2005, 09:50:24 am ---I 've though about "configurations" too (and almost started implementing them). I 'm not sure though it's a good idea, at this stage, to make such intrusive changes. Maybe after 1.0?

Yiannis.

--- End quote ---

(And I'm really not sure if doing it with targets is the right solution... seems too confusing for me right now)

Keep in mind that this redesign is long-term, for post-1.0 changes (i started the topic in advance, so we can discuss about it (in parallel) while we keep working with our standard schedule, later we can work on the ideas discussed here.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page