User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
Possibility to support another compiler (Pelles C)
RJP Computing:
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 09, 2007, 08:46:04 pm ---calm calm.
--- End quote ---
Oh I am not mad, just wanted to restate what I meant. :)
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 09, 2007, 08:46:04 pm ---If we can support another compiler (so not debugging), then that's a good thing. Several of the compilers we support have their own IDE (eg . M$ , Borland, Watcom, Intel ,..), but if you can stay within the same IDE when working on different projects, it's nice. Plus also for CB it's nice to have a wide support. But let's take step for step, since it is difficult to know all compiler settings, and the logic has to be simple (eg : mutual exclusive settings, we don't do that), so you tick a whole bunch of options where the compiler might tell you in then end the mix is not correct. But we offer the settings, the user with sound knowledge ticks what he wants.
So once we have a substantial set of settins for a compiler we can start and later on adjust or expand.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like a great idea.
EDIT:
Thanks SethJackson :D
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: RJP Computing on January 09, 2007, 08:52:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 09, 2007, 08:46:04 pm ---calm calm.
--- End quote ---
Oh I am mad, just wanted to restate what I meant. :)
--- End quote ---
I think you mean not mad. ;)
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: killerbot on January 09, 2007, 08:46:04 pm ---If we can support another compiler (so not debugging), then that's a good thing.
[...]
So once we have a substantial set of settins for a compiler we can start and later on adjust or expand.
--- End quote ---
I still maintain support for the LCC (both, LCC and the Matlab LCC) compiler in the backhand (works fine for me)... but mandrav told me better not to commit due to some remaining issues that should better be fixed inside LCC itself. Just to let you know and to prevent from re-inventing the wheel.
With regards, Morten.
skirby:
I have done a complete list of all Pelles C command line tools.
I have contact the author in order to know all necessary and optional command line tools.
You can find the result in a Word document here:
http://www.mytempdir.com/1254553
Is it sufficient for you to integrate Pelles C compiler into Code::Blocks?
I you think that my document is incomplete or useless, please let me know what you would like and I will update the document.
I have joined the help file in the zip archive.
If you need help to test the integration, I am your man :)
Have a nice day.
Edit: Word document link update
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: skirby on January 11, 2007, 11:00:57 am ---I have done a complete list of all Pelles C command line tools.
--- End quote ---
Looks good to me. One question I have: There is a POASM tool included. Is it common to write ASM code in development or is this just some special case?
Why I'm asking: I wonder how to attach the ASM compiler nicely. (You know: C::B is primary a C/C++ IDE). I could imagine to use the C++ compiler therefore... but this may lead to some misunderstanding. Otherwise I'd rather skip this ASM stuff.
With regards, Morten.
Ps.: Oh: And why is "POBIND" useless?!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version