Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Crash with batch build on linux
oBFusCATed:
--- Quote from: BlueHazzard on August 14, 2019, 09:35:22 am ---
--- Quote ---I don't think what you're doing is a good idea
--- End quote ---
Why not?
--- End quote ---
I'm talking strictly about formatting here.
--- Quote from: BlueHazzard on August 14, 2019, 09:35:22 am ---// Start the batch build after finishing the init process
--- End quote ---
Sorry, but this is useless comment. It is the same as commenting that you are setting a variable to some value. Good comments answer the why question and not the what question. (sometimes there is a need for a comment answering the what question, but this is not one of them).
BlueHazzard:
Ok here is a other version of this patch with hopefully improved formatting and comments.
I test this patch currently extensively on my build environment (windows and unix). If a can not find any bigger breaks, we should consider to merge this into trunk, and for this we have to decide who removes the wx28 projects....
oBFusCATed:
Why have you changed the process stuff?
For now it is best to make this only compile if building against wx3.x.
We'll remove them when we remove wx2.8 support.
BlueHazzard:
--- Quote ---Why have you changed the process stuff?
--- End quote ---
Because i have an automated build system for linux and windows that builds itself and then builds codeblocks automatically. I can not test one patch without the other, because if the process stuff is missing, the build will stall on windows, and if the CallAfter part is missing the build will crash on linux.
--- Code: ---For now it is best to make this only compile if building against wx3.x.
--- End code ---
Ok i will wrap it in #ifdefs
oBFusCATed:
Please separate them in two patches/commits.
The process stuff is really fragile, and when I say this I mean it. There is no way to test everything affected by this. :(
Also the flag parameter of the Launch method seems to be ignored. Aren't you getting unused variable warnings for this? Is there a reason to pass it at all? Comments why you need this?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version