Dependencies handling ?

[Urxae]

Inter-target dependencies are implemented in the same way as inter-project dependencies: add the produced file to the external dependency list.

[mandrav]

I think using the order of the projects to get things compiled in the proper order is not the best idea.

May be so, but in the end that's what it comes down to: a list of projects to build, one after another. It just so happens that this list is visible all the time: It's the workspace view

Worse, there's no easy way to move projects up and down in the workspace project list! For sure, using project dependencies would be better for that.

Try Ctrl-Shift-UpArrow and Ctrl-Shift-DownArrow
Or programmatically:

Code Select Expand

Manager::Get()->GetProjectManager()->MoveProjectUp(cbProject*);
// or
Manager::Get()->GetProjectManager()->MoveProjectDown(cbProject*);
These are not easy ways?

On another note, it just occured to me you might be talking about projects build order inside a workspace. If that's the case, then the only useful hint I can give you is that projects are built top-to-bottom, as seen in the workspace tree. This means if a project A must be compiled before project B, A must be above B in the project tree. Then a "Compile->Compile all projects" will do the trick (i.e. build all in the right order).

And, as you can see, I finally understood what you 're saying

You have to excuse me because I have never used any Microsoft IDE, so their terminology eludes me...

I thought I 'd quote this to emphasize it. In simple words: if you can't contribute code that does what you 're saying, the least you could do is provide detailed info on this thing and possible implementation details.

Yiannis.

[zieQ]

Try Ctrl-Shift-UpArrow and Ctrl-Shift-DownArrow  
[...]
These are not easy ways?

Sorry I tried dragging the project and looking at the contextual menu and I didn't see anything about that! Ok  :roll:

Not all my points are related to the build order: whatever the order I choose, the projects are not compiled as I expect it to be!

I thought I 'd quote this to emphasize it. In simple words: if you can't contribute code that does what you 're saying, the least you could do is provide detailed info on this thing and possible implementation details.

I keep trying...  :roll:  I will explain how it is perform in Visual Studio: say we have a project A (exe) which depend on B (lib), then we have to:
- ensure B is up-to-date before any compilation/link for A
- if not, recompile B
- A will have the include paths of B added in its include paths (do not appear in the include options of the project), so as to compile properly with B.
- A is linked to B (do not appear in the link options of the project)

The extension to multiple dependencies:
- before compiling the currently selected project/target, compile all dependent projects (if necessary, but visual studio compile all and issue "up-to-date" strings)
- then compile/link the current project

[RShadow]

I keep trying...  :roll:  I will explain how it is perform in Visual Studio: say we have a project A (exe) which depend on B (lib), then we have to:
- ensure B is up-to-date before any compilation/link for A
- if not, recompile B
- A will have the include paths of B added in its include paths (do not appear in the include options of the project), so as to compile properly with B.
- A is linked to B (do not appear in the link options of the project)

The extension to multiple dependencies:
- before compiling the currently selected project/target, compile all dependent projects (if necessary, but visual studio compile all and issue "up-to-date" strings)
- then compile/link the current project

forgive me if I put my foot in my mouth on this one.. I'm jumping into the conversation kind of late, but let me see if I get this right:

Lets see.. we have one workspace with two projects.

first let me get rid of the project a b c x y z stuff because it hurts my head

Project MyLib (library .. doesn't realy matter if its shared or static)
Project MyApp (executable that links to MyLib)

What you are wanting is when you manualy compile MyApp for it to automaticly detect any changes to MyLib and recompile MyLib if changes are present?  If that is the case I believe that is what mandrav explained like 3 posts up.  I'm not sure if C::B automaticly detects this, but it seems a little backwards to me.  If I make changes in MyLib then I would compile MyLib ..which would make MyApp's depends list dirty and force MyApp to recompile as well.  You want MyApp to autocheck MyLib for changes, but if MyLib changes then I already know about it.. well because I changed it.. I guess it just makes sense to me to build bottom up.. If I make a change to a library then I'm going to recompile that library before I recompile the app that links to it.  anyways having C::B setup a dependency list / build order wouldn't be too difficult, however I think most of the dev's are working on other stuff right now(like unicode support, and documentation to name a few).. perhaps you could submit a patch set with limitied funcationality of what you would like and then somebody could take it from there.

You also want MyApp's include path to have the same include path as MyLib (I think this is already possible, just add the common paths to the global compiler include paths)..

One thing I would keep in mind is that MSVC has been in development since the 80's and C::B is still a beta software..so you can't expect C::B to mimick the exact functionality of MSVC.  Personaly I think an IDE should only provide basic linking capabilities internaly.  If a more complex build solution is needed there are a lot of tools for that. (Perhaps writing plugins to interface with those tools is a good idea.. some of which are already being worked on). There are lots of tools to solve complex build senerios that have been around for a long time, and they still don't get it completly right.

[zieQ]

I'm not sure if C::B automaticly detects this, but it seems a little backwards to me.

The answer is not! I do not figure out why it is backwards to you ?!

If I make changes in MyLib then I would compile MyLib ..which would make MyApp's depends list dirty and force MyApp to recompile as well.  You want MyApp to autocheck MyLib for changes, but if MyLib changes then I already know about it.. well because I changed it.. I guess it just makes sense to me to build bottom up..

Yes, that's really simple in your case: one library, one executable. To illustrate my problem, I'm currently working on a big project. There's about 30 projects in my workspace, with complex dependencies (more than 1 level, an executable which depend on a library with depend on...), with many files opened at the same time from several projects. In my case, it is not easy, evident, straightforward to remember all the dependencies, or worse which projects the files belongs to.

That's why I need the dependency feature, I'm could not live without. Projects dependencies allow faster coding since we do not have to remember all the dependencies, and to compile every time I modify a file. That's my habits :roll: , and it seems really useful to every people I know using the Visual environment.

One thing I would keep in mind is that MSVC has been in development since the 80's and C::B is still a beta software..so you can't expect C::B to mimick the exact functionality of MSVC.

That's not what I want. I just want to discuss it, to ear the opinion of the main developer and issue a feature request! As I said, I could not live without, so if the main developers agree with this new functionality, ok, I will help implementing it in the core SDK or give some feedback, otherwise I'll switch off using CodeBlocks. So I want some feedback from them. Moreover, this could not be implemented as a plugin since it imply modifying core sdk files (cbproject files) !

PS: could I commit modifications on the CVS, how ? Should I be registered as a regular developer ? (for visual workspaces imports)

[mandrav]

That's why I need the dependency feature, I'm could not live without. Projects dependencies allow faster coding since we do not have to remember all the dependencies, and to compile every time I modify a file. That's my habits Rolling Eyes , and it seems really useful to every people I know using the Visual environment.

Point taken already.

That's not what I want. I just want to discuss it, to ear the opinion of the main developer and issue a feature request! As I said, I could not live without, so if the main developers agree with this new functionality, ok, I will help implementing it in the core SDK or give some feedback, otherwise I'll switch off using CodeBlocks. So I want some feedback from them. Moreover, this could not be implemented as a plugin since it imply modifying core sdk files (cbproject files) !

I have no problem adding this functionality, but I don't have the spare time now. I 'm doing bug-fixes, then I 'll release RC1 and then I 'll take my vacation
Anyway, since this kind of changes would be pretty heavy for the build system, they will have to be postponed for post-1.0 (no matter who writes the code).

PS: could I commit modifications on the CVS, how ? Should I be registered as a regular developer ? (for visual workspaces imports)

Please submit a patch.

Yiannis.

[rickg22]

OK what I see could be done is this:

* Add the option to specify project files as dependencies for a project (cbproject.cpp etc).
* Keep a stack of "inter-project dependencies", as which project is on the bottom of the stack. When a project depends on other projects, push it to the stack and get a list of inter-project dependencies. (This would need modification on the compiler plugin)
* If any of the inter-proj dependencies is already present on the stack, ask to abort (circular dependency error), or ignore (don't try to compile project already in the stack).

Doesn't seem as hard to implement. ZieQ, we'd need your help on this. ANY VOLUNTEERS TO HELP???

Also, please tell us about the *OTHER* problems regarding visual studio imports. (Please explain them further in your sourceforge bug report).

I wanted to tackle these before 1.0 but I'm afraid this might not be possible before RC1 at least.

[zieQ]

I posted a patch for visual imports 

About dependencies, I finally think it should be "target dependencies" since we may have one projects with many targets that depends on each other! As you said, we just have to keep a list of dependent targets (pointers) in each target. The idea of the stack is good if we want to avoid testing a target (for up-to-date) more than once (consider the exemple below). But it is more complicated to get it work than just testing/compile the dependent projects one by one.

Here is a sketch of dependencies handling for compilation. The contents of the stack is in brackets.

                      -->  { A }
     A               -->  { A, B, C } (for the current element of the stack, A here, we add its dependencies at the end, i.e B, C)
   /   \
  B     \            --> { A, B, C, E } (dependencies of B added)
  |      C           --> { A, B, C, E, D } (dependencies of C added)
  |      |
  |      D          ---> { A, B, C, D, E }  (E was already in the stack, it is moved to the end since it must be compiled before)
   \   /
     E


And finally we compile projects from the end of the stack towards the beginning, that is E, D, C, B, A (issue up-to-date if there's nothing to do) and it should work fine.

As a side note, I said that the include of dependent projects should be added in the current project, but that is not true in Visual. We must set includes by hand. The dependency feature just add the dependent library (virtually, do not appear in the project settings) to the link libs of the current target.

Hope this helps. I may help implement this feature in the week if everything is ok.

[zieQ]

Note that I'm working on a patch to implement inter-target dependencies in C::B 

[troels]

Note that I'm working on a patch to implement inter-target dependencies in C::B 

Can't wait to see it. Killer-feature!
/Troels