RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

[Sean Evoy <sevoy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Leo,
Depending on how efficient the test
to see whether an error parser works for a given project is, this might
be OK too. I guess it comes down to what semantic meaning we want to ascribe
to specifying error parsers in the manifest. If it is additive, then as
you say, maybe those parsers move to the front of the list and there is
no real penalty. The downside is that there is no way to remove the defaults,
and the implementer may need to if the output of their tool somehow fools
that default into thinking it can do the job. Like I said, as long as we
cover off the basic implementer who just wants to add tools and not error
parsers, then I am OK with specifying all the parsers you need.

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

"Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/25/2004 09:37 AM

Please respond to
cdt-dev

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

Please be patient while I respond
to myself…
 
I guess another way to treat
the list of error parsers provided by the toolchain would be to treat them
as the “priority” list.  What I mean by this is that when a Managed
Make project is created, the ordered list specified by the toolchain would
be put at front of the list of error parsers for the new project.  Then
any installed, but not specified by the toochain, error parsers would be
added to the end of the list.  This would make it possible for users
to add an error parser for all Managed Make projects - simply by installing
it.  The down-side is that all error parsers get invoked by default
for all Managed Make projects, but this is the current behavior and maybe
it’s OK.
 
Leo
 
-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:19 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers
 
Hi Sean,
 
I agree with everything you’ve
said, except for one thing (maybe…).  My proposal is for the toolchain
to specify the full, default list of error parsers for a new Managed Make
project, not to add new error parsers to the list of “installed” error
parsers.  If the toolchain does not specify the list of error parsers
and for existing Managed Make projects, the default list will be used (i.e.
the current behavior).  Are you suggesting something different?
 
Thanks,
Leo
 
-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Sean Evoy
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:20 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers
 

Leo, 
By all means, let's make this part of a toolchain specification. From the
short amount of time I spent in the error parser code area, my impression
was that the default behaviour of the core is a best-effort attempt to
find the error parser from a list of known parsers. That's why the managed
build still has its output parsed even though there is no formal UI support.

Basically, under your proposal the manifest would supply zero or more error
parsers to that list through the managed build system. We would need to
expose this list to the user through the UI, implying a new property page
(or a tab on the managed build property page, or some error parser browse
button, or...), a preference page, and a new tab on the new project wizard.
Compatibility will not be an issue (from what I can see) since the system
just adds error parsers. I would think that at some point, there may be
a request for some way to override or remove known parsers, but that can
be deferred. The default in the absence of any new definitions is to use
the default list, only now the user will be able to reorder or remove some
if that is what they want. 

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

"Lott, Jeremiah" <jeremiah.lott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/24/2004 06:03 PM

Please respond to
cdt-dev

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

 

This looks good to me.  My only question is about backward-compatability.
 What will the behavior be for projects that are already created,
but don't have an error parser set?  Also what is the behavior for
targets in the extension that don't have any error parsers associated with
them? 
  
  Jeremiah Lott 
  TimeSys Corporation 
-----Original Message-----
From: Treggiari, Leo [mailto:leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:04 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cdt-dev] Managed Make build system and Error Parsers

I was surprised to learn recently that the CDT Error Parser 
functionality is not used in the same manner by the Standard 
Make and Managed Make build systems.  From what I can tell:
  
o  Standard Make: 
  -  Allows the user to set the default for error parsers to
be 
     used and in what order in the Window -> Preferences ->
C/C++ 
     -> New Make Projects -> Error Parsers tab.
  -  When a new Standard Make project is created, allows the
user 
     to modify the default settings for the new project using
the 
     same UI. 
  -  Allows the user to change the settings for the project in
the 
     project Properties using the same UI.
  -  During a build, uses the project settings to determine which
     error parsers to invoke and in what order.
  
o  Managed Make: 
  -  Doesn't do any of the above.
  -  During a build, uses all error parsers and I don't think
there 
     is any way to control the order.
  
I sent mail to Sean a couple of days ago asking if he was in favor
of me investigating adding the error parser functionality to the 
Managed Make build system, and he said OK.  Having investigated
further, I've decided that the Managed Make support should be 
implemented somewhat differently.
  
The per-project support should be the same - that is, it can be set 
during project creation and changed by editing the project properties.
The difference would be in the project default.  It
seems to me to be more appropriate for each "target" (or "tool
chain") being defined for the Managed Make build system to specify
the default list and order of the error parsers needed by the 
"tool chain".  This could be specified by each "tool
chain" in the 
plugin.xml file where the information for the "tool chain" is
provided (for example, the "binary parser" and the command line
options. 
  
Comments? 
  
Leo Treggiari 
Intel Corp.