[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [platform-core-dev] RE: [cdt-dev] First gotchawithadd/excludechildren of FFS
|
Not a big fan of 10 PM meetings personally :-P
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
Ken Ryall
<ken.ryall@nokia.
com> To
Sent by: "CDT General developers list."
cdt-dev-bounces@e <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
clipse.org cc
"Eclipse Platform Core component
developers list."
03/13/2008 02:37 <platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
PM Subject
Re: [platform-core-dev] RE:
[cdt-dev] First
Please respond to gotchawithadd/excludechildren of
"CDT General FFS
developers list."
<cdt-dev@eclipse.
org>
Any time Szymon can make it, I?ll be there. How about just adding it on to
the end of the CDT BOF?
- Ken
From: "ext Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:58:45 -0700
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Eclipse Platform Core component developers list."
<platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: FW: [platform-core-dev] RE: [cdt-dev] First
gotchawithadd/excludechildren of FFS
OK. Someone suggest a time them. I'll see if it's something I can drop. Or
we can do it at a lunch time.
Doug.
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sergey Prigogin
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:39 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Cc: Eclipse Platform Core component developers list.
Subject: Re: FW: [platform-core-dev] RE: [cdt-dev] First
gotchawithadd/excludechildren of FFS
I'm for separating this meeting from CDT BOF. I'd like to spend CDT BOF
talking about other issues (binding resolution, context assist, etc).
-sergey
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Schaefer, Doug
<Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well I'll be there and I want to talk about flexible file systems.
Szymon can you make this time?
We can also use lunch times, I guess.
Doug.
-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:55 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [platform-core-dev] RE: [cdt-dev] First gotchawith
add/excludechildren of FFS
I guess it depends?
We really have no idea who is showing up to the BOF or what they
want to talk about. Do we know if Szymon can make that time?
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
"Schaefer, Doug"
<Doug.Schaefer@wi
ndriver.com <http://ndriver.com> >
To
Sent by: "CDT General developers
list."
cdt-dev-bounces@e <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
clipse.org <http://clipse.org>
cc
Subject
03/13/2008 12:50 RE: [platform-core-dev] RE:
PM [cdt-dev] First gotcha with
add/excludechildren of FFS
Please respond to
"CDT General
developers list."
<cdt-dev@eclipse.
org>
Did we just want to do this at the CDT BOF? I don't see much room in
the schedule. The CDT BOF is 8:45 on Wed. Thoughts?
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: platform-core-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:platform-core-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris
Recoskie
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:41 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Cc: platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [platform-core-dev] RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with
add/excludechildren of FFS
Please count me in for such a meeting.
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
"Schaefer, Doug"
<Doug.Schaefer@wi
ndriver.com <http://ndriver.com> >
To
Sent by: "CDT General developers
list."
cdt-dev-bounces@e <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
clipse.org <http://clipse.org>
<platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
03/10/2008 10:27
Subject
AM RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha
with
add/exclude children of FFS
Please respond to
"CDT General
developers list."
<cdt-dev@eclipse.
org>
Copying the platform-core-dev folks too. Is there someone from the
Platform who could attend a meeting at EclipseCon about flexible
file systems. John A, will you be there? John is Mr. EFS and we can
use his guidance.
Thanks,
Doug.
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Ryall
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 5:08 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude children of FFS
Doug,
Can we get together at EclipseCon to discuss this issue
specifically? Do you know the right platform people to invite to the
meeting? We really need to piece together a plan.
I?m sure you have enough to do so if you can tell me who to recruit
I can help organize the meeting.
Thanks - Ken
From: "ext Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:44:57 -0800
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude children of FFS
So, you know. The more I think about what you guys are saying, I'm
realizing that the EFS solution probably is the right one. The
objective should be to turn the IResource tree into a logical
project view and to remove all notions that it represents physical
file layout. That unfortunately starts with the .project and
.cproject files, but I think there are tricks we can do there. The
.settings may be harder but let me sleep on that.
At any rate, this has piqued my interest again and I'll work on
reviving it and see where it goes. I'll try to get a prototype
working by EclipseCon so we can talk about it more concretely.
Cheers,
Doug
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brunauer, Walter
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:53 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude children of FFS
Hi Warren,
well, the confusion my origin from the different meanings of what
project setup is: for me, project setup is not equal to build setup.
I.e., on our projects, the build setup is an independent step from
the project setup. We intentionally separated this to overcome all
kind of issues you obviously experienced as well. And this is how we
see it:
1. Create a project at the desired location (everything beneath this
root location is part of the project, but it can be an empty project
just as well with linked resources added to it later). By default,
the build setup is identical to the project content (there is one
build target, linking/archiving everything together).
2. If (a) specific build setup(s) are needed, it is possible to
specify as many build targets with arbitrary contents as desired.
This approach separates the physical file system layout from logical
build layouts, and it even works beyond project boundaries. IOW, no
matter from where source files are pulled in (the same projects,
nested projects, outer projects, sibling projects), one is able to
specify any build setup exactly are needed, as long as all source
files are known to Eclipse (as resources).
HTH,
Walter
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Freitag, 15. Februar 2008 14:51
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude children
of FFS
Hi Walter,
I forgot all about the absolute paths issue with linked
resources.
I'll update the wiki.
I'm a bit confused about your comment about this not being a
project
setup issue. We have our own builder as well, and it will
happily
build whatever the build description says, whether those files
are
under the project root or not. We even have our own project
explorer
view which shows a logical representation of the project rather
than
the physical file system layout. But we still run into a lot
of
issues when files are not under the project root - that is,
when you
can't get an IFile for them.
We have a wide range of user types from small application
developers
to large system developers. In many cases, a users code base
consists of hundreds of directories with thousands of source
files.
In such a source base, there are many hundreds of build
artifacts
and almost as many "logical projects". It is a huge problem
for
these users to be able to create projects currently. They
will
typically have a few projects going at a time, but many times
the
natural project root for all of them will be the same. We've
found
ways to work around some of the other issues, but not this
one. It
sounds like perhaps you guys have found a way. Could you
elaborate
on how you setup your projects?
Thanks,
Warren
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Brunauer,
Walter
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:56 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude children
of FFS
Hi Warren,
FWIW, you did not mention anything about linked resources and
absolute paths these persist in the .project file by default.
Again
a big issue around linked resources in combination with sharing
project within a team (even without team support), and one
more
reason why they appear to be so cumbersome to handle. To me it
seems
many times one has to unsell linked resources to users:
Whereas
linked resources are (kind of!) nice for evaluation purposes
(because, yes, in this case you might not want to pollute your
sources), as soon as you start serious development, you run
into all
kind of troubles. The hurdle to get everything right from the
beginning is overwhelming for novices (e.g. its not possible to
change a linked resource to use a variable later). Sorry, I
don't
know how to add this to the Wiki page...
Having said that, the scenario you describe is really about
having
the flexibility around build and indexer setup, not around
project
setup, IMO.
It's rather classic: users have common code they want to reuse
in
multiple applications - so they create one or a set of
libraries out
of it, within one or a set of projects. Of course, indexing
should
be able to handle only code going into these libraries, and
optionally ignore the rest. Then, they create their application
projects, which use the binary artifacts of the library
project(s).
Now it would be great if they would have automatic support
for
application linkage specification, i.e. some nice wizard or UI
allowing to select the library binaries of other projects to
be
linked in, without the need to specify it manually in the
linker
options. And probably also desired: during application code
development, the public API's of all used library projects
should be
the only thing they see WRT code completion, etc. I guess,
some UI
would be needed for this as well.
And now think of all developers in the world. Wouldn't it be
great
to give as many of them the freedom to choose how to achieve
this?
Either everything in one project, or one project per build
artifact,
or one project per module/application/product, or with nested
projects... its possible. Our commercial IDE based on CDT
supports
all this, and we did not have to provide some EFS or work
with
linked resources. Well, we had to override the build system,
and
this is IMO the place to solve this in CDT as well.
Again, I don't see anything specific to project setup. The
issue
around having the source tree polluted with project files - I
don't
think this is the big thing. I would not leave the Eclipse path
in
this area at all and allow to separate the project file from
the
project location. Its a very general paradigm of Eclipse, and
I am
pretty sure doing everything differently will generate lots
and lots
of problems in all kind of areas (probably much more than you
already identified), unless you make it a new Eclipse way
(add/change this in the platform, not in CDT, that is).
Just my 2 or 3 cents again,
Walter
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2008 23:35
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude
children
of FFS
I've updated the Wiki page
http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT:Flexible_Project_Structure
with
some more thoughts on the issue. It would be great to
get
feedback from other CDT users - both those shipping
C/C++
IDE's and end users. You'll see that I'm not convinced
that
the linked resources route is a viable option. Maybe we
can
get the platform team involved in the discussion to help
find
the best route forward.
Thanks,
Warren
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext
Schaefer,
Doug
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:15 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude
children
of FFS
I guess what my investigation has shown me that the EFS
solution and linked resources are pretty much identical.
I
really noticed this when trying to figure out how to
persist
the adds and found myself wishing I could add that to
the
.project file just like linked resource are. And they
are....
I think all the issues that we have with linked resources
would
be equally as bad with the EFS solution, possibly worse
because the EFS adds are hidden. The CVS one is a great
example. I really doubt CVS would work with the EFS
solution
either. And I don't want us to think EFS would be better
since
it's not in the platform where we'll have a battle
getting
changes. Any platform changes required to make linked
resource
work correctly would also need to be done for EFS.
So my hope is to save the effort at implementing the
add/remove functionality since I believe that's already
there
with linked/hidden resources. We can then focus on
making
linked resources work where we need them and improving
the
workflows. But this really needs to start now.
So, Warren, you've somewhat started a list of workflows
that
we'd like to support with this solution. This is a great
place
to start. I've created a Wiki page to start capturing
these.
Please feel free to add more information, especially to
the
workflow section. When we have that we may get a better
idea
of which of the two solutions will work best.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT:Flexible_Project_Structure
Thanks,
Doug
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:22 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude
children
of FFS
We've been working on Eclipse/CDT based products for
about
three years now. I'm sorry to say that the project model
is
still not satisfactory for our purposes. We've tried
many
angles, but are still stuck with some pretty serious
limitations. I've volunteered to investigate the EFS
route to
see if it will help at all. Based on this thread I'm
assuming
it won't.
Let me give you a brief overview of how our users work,
and
then discuss the problem we've run into. I don't think
any of
this is specific to our users BTW.
Most of our users have existing code bases. They simply
want
to "import" it into the IDE. Others will create new
projects
from our templates. The new projects are created in the
workspace. Imported projects could be anywhere in the
file
system. Often times they will import several projects
from the
same source tree. This is where our biggest problem is.
Let's say the source base looks like this:
C:\MyProjects\Project1\...
C:\MyProjects\Project2\...
C:\MyProjects\Common\...
Because both projects share code in the Common
directory, the
logical root project directory for both Project1 and
Project 2
is C:\MyProjects\. But in Eclipse you can't have two
projects
with the same root. This is where the .project and
.cproject
files are created. So currently our users would import
Project1 with the natural root (C:\MyProjects\), but
Project2
has to be rooted at C:\MyProjects\Project2\. This means
that
any source/headers from the common directory are not
under
Project2. This means those files are not in the
project
explorer for that project, are not indexed, etc.. We
logged
this against the platform -
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=78438.
Basically if you put the .project file anywhere, but
have a
project root attribute, this would cease to be a
problem.
Our first product actually always created the .project
in the
workspace, and for imported projects, would create links
to
files and folders. We ran into so many issues with this
that
we had to change the model. I don't recall all of the
issues,
but here's a list of some:
- Version control simply didn't work at all
- You can't make file system changes with links. For
example,
if you want to rename a file or folder, or move a file
around,
you can't do this with linked resources. It only
changes the
link itself, not the underlying resource.
- Creating new resources in a project with links is
confusing
at best. Let's say you have a project with a linked
folder
and file at the root. If you create a new file or
folder at
the root, it is created in the workspace, not where the
other
folder/file are in the file system. But if you create
a new
file under the linked folder, it gets created where
you'd
expect.
- The location of the .project/.cproject files are
problematic. Some users will want to keep these in
version
control, while others won't. Those that do want them
created
in the source tree, but those that don't want them
elsewhere,
like the workspace. I forget now why this was a problem
with
linked resources, but there was something weird going
on
there.
I suppose it's worth noting that the last time we really
looked at this was in Eclipse 3.2, so some of this may
have
been fixed by now. But I doubt it. In general linked
resources are second class citizens. Some IResource
API's
just don't work for linked resources. Just search for
references to IResource#isLinked for "special handling".
I
suspect that we'll run into similar issues with EFS
though -
see getLocation vs getLocationURI.
We also have the same issue that Doug is trying to
address
(hiding some branches in a source tree). This is much
less of
an issue for us though. You can already reduce the
scope of
the indexer and the build. The only real issue for us
is for
a very large source tree, you're going to get
IResource's for
everything, which slows things down quite a bit. There
is
actually somewhat of a problem in reducing the indexer
scope -
see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=178159.
The hidden attribute addition sounds promising for
hiding
resources under the project root, but doesn't really do
anything to add flexibility to the contents of a
project. EFS
sounds like it would though. What I mean by that is,
having
resources under a project that are real resources, not
linked,
but that don't live under the project root in the file
system.
I've just started looking into EFS, so maybe it's a bit
of
wishful thinking at this point, but I'm hoping we could
create
a project anywhere, and when we create it we pass the
URI
location from our own EFS. Then when asked for the
children,
we could return URI's for files from anywhere in the
file
system, or on other machines even. This would seem to
hold
the potential for working around the issues listed
above.
We'd basically have an EFS map from what we want under a
project to the actual file system.
So hopefully some of the experts can chime in here. Is
my
hope for EFS unrealistic? Is there a different approach
we
should look at?
Thanks,
Warren
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext
Brunauer,
Walter
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:47 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with add/exclude
children
of FFS
Hi,
after reading this rather long thread, I'll decided to
throw
in my personal opinion.
I consider this approach to work against one of the
most
general Eclipse platform paradigms, where a project is
defined
to be a root directory and everything in it. IMO, the
more
workarounds are introduced against this paradigm, the
more
problems will be faced, and the more incompatibilities
(or at
least unawarenesses) created.
Isn't the whole problem you try to solve here rather
about
what files should go into the build (and probably into
the
indexer) than what files are part of a project? I
understand
that CDT has no separation of what a project and what
the
build input is (well, IIRC one can exclude specific
files from
the build, but in general, the project content defines
the
build input, right?).
In our commercial IDE, we separated this. This not only
introduced much more powerful build setup capabilities
in
general, but especially enabled users to setup build
artifacts
with arbitrary contents (think of sources being
compilable
with different compiler flags for different build
artifacts,
build input exclusion patterns, build input from all
over the
workspace, multiple build artifacts within the same
project,
reusable build artifacts accross project boundaries,
etc.,
etc., etc.). BTW, we call this build system flexible
managed
build - because that's what it is:-)
Of course, one can setup CDT projects as of today to
exactly
contain what is desired (with the help of linked
resources).
However, I find linked resources to be cumbersome and
error
prone, though many of our customers start out with them
during
evaluation as well, mostly because they are looking for
a way
to achieve what they did in the past with other
non-Eclipse
based IDEs, but sooner or later I know of lots of them
realizing its much easier to use the features of our
flexible
build system instead, especially if projects need to be
shared
in a team. And now think of virtual file systems, the
potential complexity of these, hidden assumptions,
restrictions, etc. Sounds worse than linked resources to
me.
I guess, the point I am trying to make is: whatever you
decide
to do, make it understandable and transparent (and of
course
as simple as possible to use) for the user.
As said, just my 2 cents,
Walter
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Jänner 2008 23:17
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with
add/exclude
children of FFS
Jogging through the code, it really looks like the
HIDDEN feature is what I was looking for. What I
haven't
found yet is UI to make a resource hidden or a
navigator
filter to show hidden resources (in case you want
to
bring them back). Is this planned?
Assuming we have the core features available to
link in
and hide resource, I think we still have workflow
issues
that need to be addressed. I like Ken's idea of a
file
that controls the linking/hiding. We could have
an
import/export mechanism for setting up projects
based on
this file. A nice wizard for creating the file
would
also be good, similar to the way the way the export
file
system wizard works.
Given this, we may be further along than we
thought
(BTW, the hidden stuff seems to have been added in
3.4
M4).
Cheers,
Doug
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:51 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with
add/exclude
children of FFS
Thanks Michael/Szymon,
Is there a bug describing the isHidden feature?
Doug
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Michael
Valenta
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:37 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] First gotcha with
add/exclude
children of FFS
Doug et al,
Szymon is really the person you want to bug on
this but
I'll throw in my 2 cents ;-) First, I have to say
that a
solution at the IResource level (e.g. using linked
resources and the new hidden folder support) is
infinitely better from a repository provider
perspective
than an EFS based solution. You may not get all
the Team
support you want at the IResource level but a
solution at
the EFS level would certainly break the existing
CVS
client since the CVS client isn't EFS aware to
any great
extent. For instance, if you tried to hide a
folder
using EFS, the CVS client would probably try and
recreate
it the next time you performed a Team>Update. It
is also
important to note that the Platform does not
provide all
the hooks required by repository providers and I
know of
at least one provider that has resorted to using
it's own
EFS implementation under projects that are mapped
to that
provider to get the capabilities it requires. I
think it
is important that tooling in Eclipse stick to
using the
IResource layer as the layer they operate on and
let the
repository provider (or any other tooling whose
responsibility it is to manage the available
files)
control the underlying file system. If there are
shortcomings or enhancements required then you
should
push to get them in at the IResource level.
As for the current state of Team support for
linked
resources, I think the best approach is to
enumerate
some specific scenarios of how you see linked
resources
and exclusions working with descriptions of what
you
need to do today to get Team support and what you
would
like to see. It is also important to know if you
expect
all the links to come from the same repository (or
at
least repository type) or whether a project could
contain content from different repository types
(obviously the later would be more difficult to
accommodate than the former).
Hope this helps,
Michael
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
platform-core-dev mailing list
platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-core-dev
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev