RE: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status

["Matthew Fortune" <Matthew.Fortune@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For my current toolchain integration work I am quite pleased with the internal builder as it removes some of the dependencies on system setup that quite often cause users headache. I have seen a number of bugs logged against the internal builder, as highlighted here, but I don't think any of them are insurmountable.

As I understand it, the internal builder and external makefile generators should pretty much produce identical behavior and I feel this parity is quite valuable.

I have not decided what builder to recommend as yet but so far I haven't found significant drawbacks when using the internal builder.

Regards,
Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> Sent: 24 June 2010 00:48
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status
> 
> The internal builder is meant for environments that don't always have
> make available. It is the default builder for the MinGW toolchain
> integration so you could theoretically support building with MinGW on
> Windows without having MSYS or relying on MinGW's cut down version of
> Make. However for Wascana, I ship MSYS anyway.
> 
> I know Chris R was a big supporter of it. I'd wait to hear from him
> first. But despite being one of the leading visionaries for it, I'm
> actually leaning more to managing builds externally using external
> makefile generators like configure, CMake, or qmake.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM, James Blackburn
> <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> So, before we chase down these bugs (at least, those that matter to
> >> us), are folks using the internal builder in products?  Does it work?
> >
> > It can work for simple projects, but the bugs you describe indicate
> > that no one's using it in anger...
> >
> > On the ManagedBuild side, we're using the generated makefile builds
> > for two groups here which are building artefacts from  multiple
> > inter-dependent eclipse projects.  These project-sets are growing in
> > complexity every day and are starting to stress the MBS...  But so far
> > it's working reasonably well.  We've been tackling issues as we find
> > pain points and the projects grow (some of these patches are in
> > bugzilla but not yet in CDT proper).
> >
> > In the long term, the internal builder would seem ideal, but without
> > the generated makefiles, it's difficult to have confidence that the
> > builder is doing the right thing. In my experience developers are very
> > unforgiving if the IDE produces an incorrect build, where their
> > hand-written makefile would have been perfect (of course...).  With
> > the makefile generator, if something goes wrong, the intermediate
> > builder output is there for review.
> >
> > There are a fair few outstanding issues with managedbuild and any
> > contributions on that front would be very welcome.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > James
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev