[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Is the Binary Parser a project or build property
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Schaefer [mailto:dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: September 17, 2003 8:58 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Is the Binary Parser a project or
> build property
>
>
> My point is that the user shouldn't have to care about the
> binary parser.
> It would be best to make things as automatic as possible.
>
> And, yes, I would think that if you are developing with
> Windows as host
> and RTOS as a target, you would run into cases where you are
> building for
> both (i.e. Windows for Sim/Testing). We certainly have in the past.
Late to the conversation ... but just back from a customer site where
one of their complaints was the fact that they had a "unified" build
structure where they would build binaries for Windows/VxSimulator/QNX
all from the same source base and have it all live in the same tree.
The fact that there was only one binary parser available for a project
kind of caught them unawares and actually in some cases cause Eclipse
heartburn as we tried to parse things we didn't understand.
Thomas
> "Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/17/2003 05:45 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> To
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Is the Binary Parser a project or build property
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I would think it's a build thing since the setting depends on what
> target
> > you are building for. Standard Make doesn't know what the
> target is so
> > the user has to set it.
> >
> > Having said that, I would consider it a Resource setting, since you
> should
> > be able to do multi-target builds with the CDT meaning
> you'll have the
> > build results for different targets available in the same
> project. I
>
> Good point, we do not. If you have a project that is a mix of say
> DOS executables and GNU/Linux binaries ... it can be problematic.
> Something to add in the long list of 2.x pool requests?
>
> But is that a high runner case? Are we putting flexibility where
> there is no need?
>
> Double personalities will produce psychotic behaviour 8-).
> We have this all over CDT;
> Parser: C vs C++
> Builder: Debug vs Release
>
> etc ..
>
> > don't think we really handle that situation today (at least
> not in a
> user
> > friendly way). Having said that (...) I don't see why we
> can't detect
> the
> > type of binary by just looking at it. Most binary formats
> I know of
> have
> > some magic bits at the beginning to tell you what it is (or
> am I wrong?
> > It's certainly true with PE).
>
> It is more then that, Binary Parser can do much more: make a
> distinction
> between shared libraries, object, executables, archives,
> core. We could
> parse binaries
> to find symbol, line numbers etc .... The entire framework is not in
> place
> yet to make good use of it, 2.x material.
>
> For PE, unfortunately, things are not moving much. It is not
> a format
> that
> we work on everyday.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>