User forums > Using Code::Blocks

Compiling on a remote system (using a CB tool that runs ssh)

<< < (3/3)

dmoore:

--- Quote from: rickg22 on June 27, 2007, 05:47:50 pm ---johanekdahl:

Right idea, wrong tool.

--- End quote ---

yeah, I was wondering how compiler output parsing regexes would affect the code::blocks message log...

dmoore:

--- Quote from: johanekdahl on June 27, 2007, 04:44:54 pm ---So, anyone have an answer for my first question: Is there any way to get C::B to save all files before running a tool?

--- End quote ---

setting up a compiler will also solve this problem...

hmm... I do wonder whether the compiler framework will be able to handle communication over a persistent ssh session (e.g. pre/post build commands would by default run locally instead of on the remote host)

johanekdahl:
Before entering on the adventorous path of setting up a new compiler:

Are suggesting to use the C::B internal build system. It seems to me that this will not work.

I need (as in must) build on the remote system with a makefile (several actually) that resides in that tree. If doing this by setting up a compiler in C::B implies that C::B's build system will be used then I will have to

1) Figure out how the makefile(s) are structured,
2) Figure out how to get the same from the C::B's build system, and
3) Maintain the setup in C::B's build system whenever the makefile(s) change, but
4) There is no mechanism in place in the organization to signal that someone changes something in the makefiles(s).
Also, in my C::B projects I might not even have all files that are actually in the build. Some of the code I never work with. Having to maintain these files also does not make sense for me. It seems to me that using C::Bs build system is not feasible.

So I'm using C::B as a "super-editor" rather than an IDE. It does this very well (the alternative was to pay for SlickEdit and there was no funds at the time, and I was not overly impressed by some of it's features).

When I started this thread I was looking for a mechanism that
1) Did a "Save all",
2) Ran a "make" command on a remote system,
3) Captured the result, and
4) Handled this result so that I could navigate to an error with ease and prescision.
I got points 2 and 3, and that is more than what I had two days ago!

I was hoping to make the "compile for syntax/sematic errors" step a little more streamlined, but if it's not possible I still am one happy developer: I have gotten quite fond of C::B during these nine months. It does the editing job very well. It has the class browsing I desperately needed.

If my rant above is mumbo-jumbo, and it actually possible to tell C::B to execute a "make" command on a remote host by setting up a compiler in C::B, how would I go about doing that? Any hints?

Next step was to have C::B as a debug front-end (application running in the embedded system, GDB running on the Linux system and C::B on my Windoze workstation being a front end for that). Feasible?

dmoore:
You can setup a project to run pre/post build scripts. Those scripts get parsed for errors in the same way gcc and ld do... so why not try making a call to your ssh/makefile script a step in your pre/post build?

dmoore:
you can also specify that build scripts always run

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page