Hi Manfred,
I agree with you, but
since the current content-type framework can not treat extension case
correctly, we should decide between .s and .S, and I suppose that .s is more
common..
What do others think?
Thank you,
Mikhail
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neugebauer Manfred
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:20
PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: AW: [cdt-dev] ASM
content-type and uppercase S
Hallo Mikhail,
My understanding from Gnu and Assembler
always was, that assembler source files require an uppercase "S" to
be compiled automatically.
Manfred.
Von:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Sennikovsky, Mikhail
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. August 2005
17:44
An: CDT General developers list.
Betreff: RE: [cdt-dev] ASM
content-type and uppercase S
Hi,
I was looking through the managed build test failures
now and I'm not sure whether the test benchmark files or CDT is to be updated
:-0
The difference in the benchmark files that confuses me
is related with the asm sources content type. The benchmark assumes asm sources
have a lower case .s extension, while MBS generates makefiles that include
uppercase .S files and do not include lowercase .s.
Leo recently posted the
below email that met no objections and comments.
So what is the consensus on
asm sontent types? Should we remove the uppercase S from the asm content type extension
list or should we keep it? In case we keep it, files with the lowercase .s
extension will not be treated as asm sources.
What do you guys think?
Thank you,
Mikhail
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
6:59 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] ASM
content-type and uppercase S
I’m assuming
lowercase “s” files are more common. If not, please
reply. Given the current state of the content type support, we have 2
choices with regards to s vs. S.
1. Remove S from
the content type. If a user has S files, he will need to add *.S to the
project specific content type. The way it is now, he would have to add
*.s.
2. Don’t use content
types in the assembler tool definition. This would go back to the 2.1
behavior where there is a fixed set of extensions associated with the
assembler.
What do people think is
best?
Leo
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lott, Jeremiah
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
10:44 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] ASM
content-type and uppercase S
I didn't try the latest
build, but I got the latest from head and ran self-hosted. You are
correct. Capital "S" files are included. Lowercase
"s" files are not.
-----Original
Message-----
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
10:41 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: [cdt-dev] ASM
content-type and uppercase S
Does anyone have a managed make project that includes
assembler source to try with the latest build? I have a suspicion that
with the latest ASM content type description that includes both lowercase s and
uppercase s, and the current Eclipse treatment of content type case
insensitivity, lowercase s files would be not included, by default, in the
build. I’d try it myself if I had a test case.
Thanks,
Leo