I ask my question in such a specific way because I am afraid that a more generic form could lead to excessively theoretic discussions of how the things should be done best and in the most appropriate way (like a question about pre and post-process actions in SCons).
WPP incorporation actually requires execution of an additional command (commands) before compilation of a file and only even if the build process finds necessity to compile the file without any regard to WPP.
I would remark that this is easily achieved with few lines of definitions in a shared Visual Studio property page file making this work for multiple files in multiple projects, folders, etc. in an absolutely transparent for developers way.
Thus I am wondering whether this can be done in a similarly simple way with SCons? I do not have any deep knowledge of either SCons or MSBuild frameworks; I work with them for simple practical use so I would truly appreciate a practical and useful advise.
Here's what I'd suggest.
SCons builds command lines from Environment() variables.
For example the compile command line for building shared object for c++ is stored in SHCXXCOM (and the variable for what is displayed to user when the command is run defaults to SHCXXCOM, but can be changed by modifying SHCXXCOMSTR).
Back to the problem at hand.
Assuming you have a limited number of build steps you want to wrap, you can do something like.
env['SHCXXCOM'] = [ 'MPP PRE COMMAND LINE', env['SHCXXCOM'], 'MPP POST COMMAND LINE']
You'll have to figure out which variables you need to do this with, but take a look at the manpage to figure that out.
https://scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-man.html
p.s. I've not tried this, but in theory it should work. Let us know if not.
Related
I'm attempting to build a large legacy code base that has troubles building under new toolchain. In order to speed up fixing problems, I run
make -k
to build everything that can be built, so that I can later focus on unbuildable stuff. But even then a single make takes a minute to figure out the next problem to work on (this code base uses a tangled mess of Makefiles which take ages to parse).
Is there any way to list all targets that failed during a single make -k run?
I'd redirect the make -k output to a file and then look for the error patterns in it. I use vim and I'm typically looking for these:
make:\ \*\*\*
\*\*\*\ \[
A (custom) log parser can be written as well as needed.
When debugging, it is also worth to look out for synchronization irregularities, where part of the stderr message may be missing!
I am working on an really large multi language project (1000+ Classes + Configs + Scripts), with files distributed over network drives. I am having trouble fighting through the code, since the available Tools are not helping. The main problem is finding things. For the C++ Part: VS with VAX can only find files and symbols which are in the solution. A lot of them are not. Same problem with Reshaper. Right now i am stuck with doing unindexed string and file searches, which is highly inefficient on a network drive. I heared that SourceInsight would be an option since it allows you to just specify the folders that are part of the project and than indexes them, but my company wont spent money on it.
So my question ist: what Tools are there available to fight through an incredible large amount of code? And if possible they should be low cost or even free/open source.
Check out -
ctags
cscope
idutils
snavigator
In every one of these tools, you would have to invest(*) some time in reading the documentation, and then building your index. Consider switching to an editor that will work with these tools.
(*): I do mean invest, because it will reap dividends once you do.
hope this helps,
If you need to maintain a large amount of code, you really should have a source code managment system, a lot of them will help you find text by indexing all the files
And Most of them will work with various language.
Otherwise you can install some indexer like Apache Lucene and index all your files...
You should take a look at LXR. This is used by many Linux kernel source listings.
Try ndexer http://code.google.com/p/ndexer/
promises to Handle extremely large codebases!
The Perl program ack is also worth a look -- think of it as multi-file grep on steroids. The new version (in what I would call late beta) even lets you specify regexes for the files to process as well as regexes to search for -- a feature I've used extensively since it came out (I've got a subproject with 30k lines in 300+ classes, where this feature has been very helpful). You can even chain the new ack with itself so you can subselect the files to process.
VS with VAX can only find files and symbols which are in the solution. A lot of them are not.
You can add all the files that are not in your solution and set them to not build in the settings. Your VS build will not be affected by this, but now VS knows about those files and you can search them along with your VS native files.
I was looking for a solution to store program settings or options or configuration in C++. These could be settings that are exposed in a GUI and need to be saved between runs of my code.
In my search I came across boost.PropertyTree which seemed to be a good choice. I know boost is well respected code so I'm comfortable using it and so I started developing using this. Then I come across boost.program_options which seems to allow you to do the same thing but also looks more specialized for the specific use-case of program settings.
Now I'm wondering which is the most appropriate for the job? (or is there a 3rd option that is better than both)
EDIT:
fyi this is for a plugin so it will not use command line options (as in, it's not even possible).
UPDATE
I ended up sticking with boost.PropertyTree. I needed to be able to save changed options back to the INI, and I didn't see a way of doing that with boost.program_options.
Use boost::program_options. It's exactly what it's for. In one library you get command line options, environment variables options and an INI-like configuration file parser. And they're all integrated together in the Right way, so when then the user specifies the same option in more than one of these sources the library knows the Right priority order to consider.
boost::property_tree on the other hand is a more generalized library. The library parses the text stream into a uniform data model. But You need to do the real parsing -- that of making sense of the blob of data for your needs. The library doesn't know when to expect a parameter when it sees a particular option string, or to disallow specific values or types of values for a particular option.
After some digging around I think boost.PropertyTree is still the best solution because it gives me the capability to save the options after changing them from within the program which is a requirement.
There is a non-Boost possibility too. Config4Cpp is a robust, simple-to-use and comprehensively documented configuration-file parser library that I wrote. It is available at www.config4star.org.
I suggest you read Chapter 3 (Preferences for a GUI Application) of the Practical Usage Guide manual to read an overview of how Config4Cpp can do what you want. Then open the Getting Started Guide manual, and skim-read Chapters 2 and 3, and Section 7.4 (you might prefer to read the PDF version of that manual). Doing that should give you sufficient details to help you decide if Config4Cpp suits your needs better or worse than Boost.
By the way, the indicated chapters and sections of documentation are short, so they shouldn't take long to read.
I am trying to insert a custom preprocessor into the VC++ 2010 build-pipe after the regular preprocessor has finished, so far i figured that the way of doing this is via MSBuild.
To this point I wasn't able to find out much more, so my questions are:
Is this possible at all?
If so, what do I need to look at, to get going.
If you are talking about the c/c++ preprocessor, then you are probably out of luck. AFAIK, the preprocessor is built into the compiler itself. You can get the compiler to output a pre-processed file and then you MIGHT be able to send that through the compiler a second time to get the final output.
This may not work anyway due to the code being produced, at least in previous versions of cl.exe, doesn't seem to be 100% correct (white space gets mangled slightly which can cause errors).
If you want to take this path, what you'd need to do is have an MSBuild 'Target' that runs before the 'ClCompile' target.
This new target would have to run the 'cl.exe' program with all the settings that 'ClCompile' usually sends it with as well as the '/P' option which will "preprocess to a file".
Then you need to run your tool over the processed file and then finally feed these new files into 'ClCompile'.
If you need any more info just reply in the comments and I'll try to add some when I get the time (this question is rather old, so i'm not sure if it's worthwhile investing more time into this answer).
I was going to create the C++ IDE Vim extendable plugin. It is not a problem to make one which will satisfy my own needs.
This plugin was going to work with workspaces, projects and its dependencies.
This is for unix like system with gcc as c++ compiler.
So my question is what is the most important things you'd need from an IDE? Please take in account that this is Vim, where almost all, almost, is possible.
Several questions:
How often do you manage different workspaces with projects inside them and their relationships between them? What is the most annoying things in this process.
Is is necessary to recreate "project" from the Makefile?
Thanks.
Reason to create this plugin:
With a bunch of plugins and self written ones we can simulate most of things. It is ok when we work on a one big "infinitive" project.
Good when we already have a makefile or jam file. Bad when we have to create our owns, mostly by copy and paste existing.
All ctags and cscope related things have to know about list of a real project files. And we create such ones. This <project#get_list_of_files()> and many similar could be a good project api function to cooperate with an existing and the future plugins.
Cooperation with an existing makefiles can help to find out the list of the real project files and the executable name.
With plugin system inside the plugin there can be different project templates.
Above are some reasons why I will start the job. I'd like to hear your one.
There are multiple problems. Most of them are already solved by independent and generic plugins.
Regarding the definition of what is a project.
Given a set of files in a same directory, each file can be the unique file of a project -- I always have a tests/ directory where I host pet projects, or where I test the behaviour of the compiler. On the opposite, the files from a set of directories can be part of a same and very big project.
In the end, what really defines a project is a (leaf) "makefile" -- And why restrict ourselves to makefiles, what about scons, autotools, ant, (b)jam, aap? And BTW, Sun-Makefiles or GNU-Makefiles ?
Moreover, I don't see any point in having vim know the exact files in the current project. And even so, the well known project.vim plugin already does the job. Personally I use a local_vimrc plugin (I'm maintaining one, and I've seen two others on SF). With this plugin, I just have to drop a _vimrc_local.vim file in a directory, and what is defined in it (:mappings, :functions, variables, :commands, :settings, ...) will apply to each file under the directory -- I work on a big project having a dozen of subcomponents, each component live in its own directory, has its own makefile (not even named Makefile, nor with a name of the directory)
Regarding C++ code understanding
Every time we want to do something complex (refactorings like rename-function, rename-variable, generate-switch-from-current-variable-which-is-an-enum, ...), we need vim to have an understanding of C++. Most of the existing plugins rely on ctags. Unfortunately, ctags comprehension of C++ is quite limited -- I have already written a few advanced things, but I'm often stopped by the poor information provided by ctags. cscope is no better. Eventually, I think we will have to integrate an advanced tool like elsa/pork/ionk/deshydrata/....
NB: That's where, now, I concentrate most of my efforts.
Regarding Doxygen
I don't known how difficult it is to jump to the doxygen definition associated to a current token. The first difficulty is to understand what the cursor is on (I guess omnicppcomplete has already done a lot of work in this direction). The second difficulty will be to understand how doxygen generate the page name for each symbol from the code.
Opening vim at the right line of code from a doxygen page should be simple with a greasemonkey plugin.
Regarding the debugger
There is the pyclewn project for those that run vim under linux, and with gdb as debugger. Unfortunately, it does not support other debuggers like dbx.
Responses to other requirements:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
My BuildToolsWrapper plugin has a g:BTW_run_parameters option (easily overridden with project/local_vimrc solutions). Adding a mapping to ask the arguments to use is really simple. (see :h inputdialog())
work with source control system
There already exist several plugins addressing this issue. This has nothing to do with C++, and it must not be addressed by a C++ suite.
debugger
source code navigation tools (now I am using http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1638 plugin and ctags)
compile lib/project/one source file from ide
navigation by files in project
work with source control system
easy acces to file changes history
rename file/variable/method functions
easy access to c++ help
easy change project settings (Makefiles, jam, etc)
fast autocomplette for paths/variables/methods/parameters
smart identation for new scopes (also it will be good thing if developer will have posibility to setup identation rules)
highlighting incorrect by code convenstion identation (tabs instead spaces, spaces after ";", spaces near "(" or ")", etc)
reformating selected block by convenstion
Things I'd like in an IDE that the ones I use don't provide:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
A "Tools" menu that is configurable on a per-project basis
Ability to rejig the keyboard mappings for every possible command.
Ability to produce lists of project configurations in text form
Intelligent floating (not docked) windows for debugger etc. that pop up only when I need them, stay on top and then disappear when no longer needed.
Built-in code metrics analysis so I get a list of the most complex functions in the project and can click on them to jump to the code
Built-in support for Doxygen or similar so I can click in a Doxygen document and go directly to code. Sjould also reverse navigate from code to Doxygen.
No doubt someone will now say Eclipse can do this or that, but it's too slow and bloated for me.
Adding to Neil's answer:
integration with gdb as in emacs. I know of clewn, but I don't like that I have to restart vim to restart the debugger. With clewn, vim is integrated into the debugger, but not the other way around.
Not sure if you are developing on Windows, but if you are I suggest you check out Viemu. It is a pretty good VIM extension for Visual Studio. I really like Visual Studio as an IDE (although I still think VC6 is hard to beat), so a Vim extension for VS was perfect for me. Features that I would prefer worked better in a Vim IDE are:
The Macro Recording is a bit error prone, especially with indentation. I find I can easily and often record macros in Vim while I am editing code (eg. taking an enum defn from a header and cranking out a corresponding switch statement), but found that Viemu is a bit flakey in that deptartment.
The VIM code completion picks up words in the current buffer where Viemu hooks into the VS code completion stuff. This means if I have just created a method name and I want to ctrl ] to auto complete, Vim will pick it up, but Viemu won't.
For me, it's just down to the necessities
nice integration with ctags, so you can do jump to definition
intelligent completion, that also give you the function prototype
easy way to switch between code and headers
interactive debugging with breaakpoints, but maybe
maybe folding
extra bonus points for refactoring tools like rename or extract method
I'd say stay away from defining projects - just treat the entire file branch as part of the "project" and let users have a settings file to override that default
99% of the difference in speed I see between IDE and vim users is code lookup and navigation. You need to be able to grep your source tree for a phrase (or intelligently look for the right symbol using ctags), show all the hits, and switch to that file in like two or three keystrokes.
All the other crap like repository navigation or interactive debugging is nice, but there are other ways to solve those problems. I'd say drop the interactive debugging even. Just focus on what makes IDEs good editors - have a "big picture" view of your project, instead of single file.
In fact, are there any plugins for vim that already achieve this?