User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
Moving to GCC question
killerbot:
I agree with Thomas on this. We should not add secretely extra paths, to get something to compile.
troels:
--- Quote from: thomas on January 19, 2006, 03:47:43 pm ---The correct way of operation for a compiler is to have a clearly defined set of search paths (and a clearly defined order), so there is no question about which one to use.
--- End quote ---
Problem is that the number of search paths tends to add up in non-trivial projects, yielding a compilation speed hit. And gcc is a terrible slow compiler already (it has advantages too naturally, but not speed).
Likewise Yiannis' fix, neat and straightforward as it is, is bound to yield a slight compilation speed hit too (adding one more search path). I'd personally vote for invoking gcc in the source module's directory (no added search path), but perhaps Rick's suggestion is most likely to make everybody happy.
--- Quote from: thomas on January 19, 2006, 05:52:59 pm ---The compiler should...not perform any MS-style capers.
--- End quote ---
What's wrong in catering for MS-users a bit? Lots of potential users there. An elitist gcc-is-god stance is not likely to benefit the project much.
--- Quote from: mandrav on January 19, 2006, 03:24:53 pm ---The sentence you quoted from the website, does not mean that we 'll work for any crazy idea anyone might have. And for free.
--- End quote ---
Likewise I provided feedback for free. Qualified feedback even, I believe. One dev makes a move to bury this suggestion of mine, and for objecting to this I get called crazy. I'll be silent.
Logged out.
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 19, 2006, 10:03:58 pm ---I agree with Thomas on this. We should not add secretely extra paths, to get something to compile.
--- End quote ---
Yup. I'll have to agree.
Michael:
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 19, 2006, 10:03:58 pm ---I agree with Thomas on this. We should not add secretely extra paths, to get something to compile.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I agree on this too.
Michael
mandrav:
OK, I think enough have been said about the issue.
The commit log of r1820:
* Added compiler-independent option to explicitely add the currently compiling file's directory to the compiler's search dirs. This fixes once and for all the bug with revision 1813 and allows it to be configurable. Default is *not* to add this dir behind the scenes (i.e. the way it always was).
Although the first "fix" for this issue had a bug, it still needed to be applied. You all failed to see that there really is an issue here and troels was right to bring this up.
And Thomas, Rick, et al, it's not a MSVC-specific hack. If you think about it, it would have occurred with the test project troels attached even if it was using GNU autotools. Autotools do change the working dir to the file's dir also, like MSVC. This would fail there too, so to sum it up, this really was a C::B issue which got fixed the easiest way: let the user decide how to handle this.
I 'm not blaiming anyone here, I 'm just saying you failed to see the issue. After all, I was the one that told Thomas to close this bug report as invalid when he asked me what to do...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version