Apologies for losing track of this. Please test the following patch:
diff --git a/src/plugins/compilergcc/compileroptionsdlg.cpp b/src/plugins/compilergcc/compileroptionsdlg.cpp
index 611fd9f..4160228 100644
--- a/src/plugins/compilergcc/compileroptionsdlg.cpp
+++ b/src/plugins/compilergcc/compileroptionsdlg.cpp
@@ -1371,6 +1371,9 @@ void CompilerOptionsDlg::DoSaveCompilerDefinition()
if (!wxDirExists(ConfigManager::GetFolder(sdDataUser) + wxT("/compilers")))
wxMkdir(ConfigManager::GetFolder(sdDataUser) + wxT("/compilers"));
doc.Save(ConfigManager::GetFolder(sdDataUser) + wxT("/compilers/options_") + compiler->GetID() + wxT(".xml"));
+
+ // update the in memory cache
+ compiler->SetOptions(m_Options);
} // DoSaveCompilerDefinition
// events
Edit: Looks like it may not be that simple. (Possible issues with overwriting global enable compiler options.)
Edit 2: Or maybe not? Needs more testing...
well.... that patch was minimal^^ The main reason wasn't this fix xD Just fixed that anyway... And I've even commented it.. you can clearly see that it's only in the 2nd file... and there it's just 2 relevant lines out of 8.. so not hard to check ;) (and less then 5 minutes of time, less time I would need to create a new one)
it's95 - compiler->SetOptions(m_Options); //LDC : DOES NOT BELONG HERE !!!
118 + compiler->SetOptions(m_Options);
Patches have to be looked at anyway, so it doesn't change much.. either you understand what they do and apply them, understand what they do and properly implement them (because something was overlooked) or you don't understand and ignore them.. well a developer should always understand what's going on with his own program :P
Posting patches is work as well, unnecessary work and I've took about an hour to just post that one... fixing it was almost faster^^ (well not really.. that "save fix", yes, the other changes.. maybe not)
So stop complaining about "huge" patches (even tho that one isn't huge at all... it's even easy to understand) just addict yourself to you program (Code::Blocks) and try to improve it instead of ignoring stuff. You know.. this patching mechanism is a real problem with open source.. because patches aren't accepted in time and a lot good ones just ignored. And I don't mean Code::Blocks specifically.. I've checked multiple open source softwares and their patches.. some aren't accepted for years even though they fixed a "major" problem and seemed ok. Generally rather rewrite the patch when it fixes something than ignoring it all together. Guess why some people don't even bother to post patches ;) It's mainly a waste of time. (Even more when you try to keep them "small")
One might have high requirements for feature adding patches... but not bug or major usability fixes ;)