Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Changing build options, should force a rebuild
iw2nhl:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:02:22 pm ---Again: I don't think so. Let me give you an example: If I turn off a compiler warning level, why should all files be marked as dirty then? And in fact that time I dont want to do a re-build!
--- End quote ---
If I increase warning level is because I want to see if there are other errors in the code and I do this after everything else compiles rightly. So yes, I DO a re-build after changing warning level (at least most of the times).
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:02:22 pm ---I'm using VS6. Of course this can be done here (btw: limited!). But this applies to only one compiler and is neighter backward nor forward compatible. C::B supports more than one compiler.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. Why is this "neighter backward nor forward compatible"?
VS6 just warning you that you SHOULD recompile everything and you can do it or not (depending on what button you click in the dialog shown).
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:02:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: iw2nhl on July 18, 2006, 03:42:54 pm ---Yes, for my point of view this is a bug.
--- End quote ---
Well, I'd say for many people (including me) it isn't Who is right?
--- End quote ---
Sorry but still I can't understand!
Why, if I change the compiler optimizations flags, the project should not be rebuilt?
Why you changed them then?
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:02:22 pm ---Again: You know for sure when you have to do a re-build. So why don't you press re-build? This I don't get...?!
--- End quote ---
Yes, and I can use Notepad to develop too ;-).
[EDIT]
Moreover consider that not everyone knows when he has to rebuild all. A lot of people trust what IDE is doing and if they click "build" and no errors are shown, a "not expert" could think that his changes have been applied.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: iw2nhl on July 18, 2006, 03:42:54 pm ---The same for .h files: if you change only .h files (I if remember well), nothing is recompiled [...]
--- End quote ---
C::B should support this. But I cannot reproduce tis issue: I've created a simple project that includes an enumeration via a header file. If I only change the header file (e.g. add another enumeration member) C::B re-builds all object files that depend on that header file just fine.
Could you give an example where this doesn't work? Because in fact this would be a bug.
With regards, Morten.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: iw2nhl on July 18, 2006, 04:23:39 pm ---Why, if I change the compiler optimizations flags, the project should not be rebuilt?
--- End quote ---
The project shall be re-build but only if I issue a re-build. You have two buttons there: Build and Re-Build. They do what they say and they compute their functionality upon the files that have changed (binary, sources). All I'm saying is that for a change in the compiler settings it can't be easily obtained if really a re-build is required, or not. So when I start bugging the user with "you better re-build" the option if (s)he chooses to re-build or not still depends on the knowledge of the user. This knowledge (s)he does have (or not) could directly lead to press the right button.
Anyway: As a help how would it be to have a message like "If you change the compiler options you should consider a re-build of you project(s)" on the pages where you setup compiler options. Would this help? This would be nearly zero code change and warn the user in a non-interactive way and will be "compatible" too all compilers.
iw2nhl:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:31:24 pm ---
--- Quote from: iw2nhl on July 18, 2006, 03:42:54 pm ---The same for .h files: if you change only .h files (I if remember well), nothing is recompiled [...]
--- End quote ---
C::B should support this. But I cannot reproduce tis issue: I've created a simple project that includes an enumeration via a header file. If I only change the header file (e.g. add another enumeration member) C::B re-builds all object files that depend on that header file just fine.
Could you give an example where this doesn't work? Because in fact this would be a bug.
With regards, Morten.
--- End quote ---
Sorry if it was not clear, I was speaking about "make", not C::B!
I meant this was a bug of the "make" program :-)
iw2nhl:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:42:07 pm ---So when I start bugging the user with "you better re-build" the option if (s)he chooses to re-build or not still depends on the knowledge of the user. This knowledge (s)he does have (or not) could directly lead to press the right button.
--- End quote ---
Yes, and for this you guide the user saying him that the recommended choice is to recompile!
You help him, but letting him the choice.
I think this is the better way to help new developers and not limit experienced ones!
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on July 18, 2006, 04:42:07 pm ---Anyway: As a help how would it be to have a message like "If you change the compiler options you should consider a re-build of you project(s)" on the pages where you setup compiler options. Would this help? This would be nearly zero code change and warn the user in a non-interactive way and will be "compatible" too all compilers.
--- End quote ---
No, I don't think so. I wrote a lot of programs and one of the main thing I learned is that "people does not read". Someone do it if he is forced (read this as a dialog with at least 2 buttons ;-)). But most of them does not read in that case too :-(. For this you need the recommended choice, which will be clicked by most users, solving them a lot of troubles (and removing a lot of messages of false-bugs in this forum too :lol:).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version