Code::Blocks Forums
User forums => Help => Topic started by: Eridano on May 23, 2007, 11:17:35 am
-
Hi folks.
I'd like to use Code::Blocks to make c++ (short) program for Sony PSP.
I installed PSPDevWin32.zip (http://dl.qj.net/PSPDev-for-Win32-PSP-Development/pg/12/fid/8185/catid/204).
The core directory structure for PSP compiler is :
C:\pspdev
|
+-- bin
+-- i686-pc-cygwin
+-- include
+-- info
+-- lib
+-- libexec
+-- man
+-- psp
+-- pspdev.bat
+-- psplink
+-- readme.txt
+-- share
+-- uninstall.exe
How can I customize code::blocks to compile my short psp c++ source programs?
Thanks in advance.
Ivan Cella
eridano@hotmail.com
-
I had posted a short video tutorial explaining steps to add another compiler in C::B. The tutorial demonstrates adding TurboC++ compiler in C::B. Go through that tutorial and make a copy of GCC compiler same way and tweak it as necessary.
http://biplab.in/2007/01/09/add-turbo-c-explorers-compiler-to-codeblocks/
Hopefully this will shed some light.
Regards,
Biplab
-
I would like to add the following.
I have some projects with TinyXml, and they sometimes fail to compile with the 'old' free Borland Compiler. Though they compile ok, with 7 other compilers !!!
I am gonna check (planning already for months now :-( ) if it compiles ok with the Turbo C++ version.
If so I think we should replace our 'old' Borland compiler support with the new one. Just like we do with Gcc, we have Gcc, but we don't make distinction between versions.
Now suppose some people still need the old one, well then those people should do the xtra hassle of adding a compiler instead of the TurboC++ ones.
EDIT : you can download it for free, and I think you can get keys for free also (for one Turbo product I think). And the question is, is the key at runtime needed for the IDE or for the compiler programs, since for integration in CB we just need the compiler programs ?
Anyone any experienc on this matter of TurboC++ ??
-
I am gonna check (planning already for months now :-( ) if it compiles ok with the Turbo C++ version.
If so I think we should replace our 'old' Borland compiler support with the new one. Just like we do with Gcc, we have Gcc, but we don't make distinction between versions.
No need to drop old compiler support. I'll add it tomorrow as a new compiler (Borland 5.82).
EDIT : you can download it for free, and I think you can get keys for free also (for one Turbo product I think). And the question is, is the key at runtime needed for the IDE or for the compiler programs, since for integration in CB we just need the compiler programs ?
Anyone any experienc on this matter of TurboC++ ??
The key is necessary for if you want to run IDE.
-
I would throw away the old one, otherwise our list will become too long ... ;-)
You decide ;-)
-
I think once we have compiler settings in xml (post 1.0) it will be much easier, since we don't have code to maintain then ...
EDIT :say I want to upgrade to the new compiler, then I will have to adjust all my projects, since the compiler id will different. Real hassle, and bigger hassle when there's a version control system in play ... :-(
-
I think once we have compiler settings in xml (post 1.0) it will be much easier, since we don't have code to maintain then ...
There are couple of differences in the new version which are not available in BCC 5.5.1. One example, specifying one header to be used to compile pre-compiled header which is missing in old version. So if new version replaces old one, it may create problem if an user chooses wrong option.
I agree with you that the list has become too long. ;)
-
ok, new option, but projects for th old oneee will keep on working, backwards compatible, so there's no problem then.
It's like with gcc, suddenly there are also new options. If you want to use them, know what they stand for, otherwise don't touch them.
-
OK, I'll add detection code for new compiler and keep the old detection code, too. In case both are present, new compiler will be set as default. The compiler name will not contain any version number. :)
-
great ...
-
BTW, as you wrote that old bcc fails to compile latest codes. I faced one such problem. I'm writing a bakefile to compile C::B with different compiler. BCC 5.5.1 failed to compile Squirrel. :)
-
for me it starts to go wrong on one the the header files on TinyXml. So weird....
Will experiment tomorrow by reducing the project. It goes wron because of another include.
And order of includes was also important.