News:

As usual while waiting for the next release - don't forget to check the nightly builds in the forum.

Main Menu

Compiling precompiled headers file with Code::Blocks

Started by yakumoklesk, August 23, 2007, 09:24:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thomas

Quote from: killerbot on August 24, 2007, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: thomas on August 24, 2007, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: killerbot on August 24, 2007, 11:22:31 AM
QuoteWwolf is right insofar as we can indeed not do much about it (nothing at all, actually). Just ignore it, or use the compiler option to turn off attribute warnings (this won't affect any other warnings).

I think we should do that, what is the option ?
I think we should not do that. I makes building with 3.4.x impossible.

3.4.x fails to build then ?
-Wno-comment was added with gcc 4.1, so both the 3.4 and 4.0 series will fail with "unknown command line switch" if you add that to the project/makefile.

It's ok for someone to use the flag if he only wants use gcc 4.2 anyway... but I think we should not use it.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: Premature quotation is the root of public humiliation."

killerbot


Biplab

Quote from: killerbot on August 25, 2007, 01:53:39 PM
I'll see if I can do it with scripting ;-)

There is a SDK function, CompilerMINGW::GetVersionString(). It'll return the version string of GCC (e.g., 4.1.2). You can use it somehow.  :)
Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

killerbot

yes indeed, an when we know it's above 4.2 we add the little option to the compiler.
Just need to check with the big boss, if it is ok, to have a codeblocks.script next to our codeblocks.cbp ;-)

thomas

Why an extra file? You could [[  ]] it as pre-build step for the first target.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: Premature quotation is the root of public humiliation."

killerbot

Quote from: thomas on August 25, 2007, 05:50:10 PM
Why an extra file? You could [[  ]] it as pre-build step for the first target.
now that's something I didn't know

yakumoklesk

It would be nice if another workaround is found rather of the -"Wno_attributes" option. I like the most warnings that are really warnings to be shown, and only mask the warnings that one knows to be sure that are harmless.