I have a large solution that contains C# and C++ projects. After I code in my classes or functions I run a build to have the parser check syntax. What I have noticed is that when I press F6 the entire solution will build and get parsed except for the C++ files that I'm working on.
This seems like it's not the intended function of the editor so is there a way I can force this to happen when I perform a build?
Thanks,
P.S. I know I can go to rebuild project and force a build that way. I'm looking for a way to have the editors treatment of C++ and C# files be consistent.
In the solution properties, under "Configuration Properties", make sure the C++ projects are set to build. Also, make sure the project dependencies are setup properly.
These two things control which projects are built when you run a build.
Related
I am trying to open an existing C++ open-source library in Xcode to publish it with my own modification/additions. The library is Tesseract-OCR, which does not include a .xcodeproj file.
Since Xcode can function as an IDE, is it possible to open a bunch of files as a single project in Xcode? Is there an easy way to produce an Xcode project?
There are several ways you could do it, depending on the level of IDE integration you want. There's no direct way of importing a Makefile-based project into Xcode. You can create a project that builds via the Makefile, but you wouldn't get many of the benefits of using an IDE, since the editor features such as word completion rely on Xcode being able to parse the files in the project. You will be able to use the debugger though. To do this, create a new project and add a custom target with a script build phase that just calls down to Makefile.
If however the project you're building compiles very easily, ie without requiring a lot of macros to be set up, include paths, etc, then it may be simple to just create an empty project and merely add all source files to it. I've used this method extensively for building boost libraries. If this is a configure && make type project then you will probably have to run the configure step first, and ensure any top level config.h files are included in the project.
If the project has a complex makefile then it is likely to be an involved task to create a useful Xcode project
I realise you asked explicitly for Xcode, but in case you were actually trying to solve the problem of "I have existing C++ code which builds and runs fine from the command line, and I'd like to code and debug it in an IDE, what should I do?" my firm recommendation would be to avoid Xcode and go for Eclipse.
The reason is that as far as I can tell, Xcode has no way of ingesting the command line build environment and effectively requires you to recreate the make process inside Xcode from scratch. Fine for tiny projects, but anything with more than a few source files and it quickly becomes painful. Whereas in Eclipse everything is built around Makefiles. So in my case I got to the "step through code with working code completion" in Eclipse a lot quicker vs. never in Xcode. This of course could be because I'm an Xcode noob, but my 2c.
To create an Xcode project from an existing cmake project, you can run cmake -G Xcode. It produces some folders and files apart from the project file, so it might be better to create a folder for it first. For example:
mkdir -p build/xcode
cd build/xcode
cmake -G Xcode ../..
Xcode is a useable IDE for library creation.
Of course a good first step is to see if the one source code will build on its own with configure scripts that are included.
If not, it becomes a question of how many libraries you need to link in.
There are resources online (or at least there used to be) for using Xcode (or perhaps it's forerunner Product builder) for porting Unix projects to Mac.
Good tutorial at: http://www.macresearch.org/tutorial-introducing-xcode-30-organizer
Another good reference is Darwin Ports.
As for doing this on your own. You can build c++ based libraries in XCode. People do that every day. You can even use one of the Xcode templates to get you started.
However, library dev requires more experience with Xcode then say a simple Cocoa "Hello World" app.
The remaining questions will be assuring that the source code's dependencies are already built into the Mac's SDK. (Don't hold your breath for linking to MFC)
It's a general question... So it's a general answer.
In Xcode8,there is "Xcode->file->add files to...",then choose your files.If you want to add several files at a time,press "Cmd" when you are choosing.
I have checked in buid directory and have not found makefile there. How does Visual Studio 2008 buid the project? Does it use makefile?
The NMAKE utility has been distributed with Visual C++ since back when it was called Microsoft C/C++ Optimizing Compiler, and is very similar to Unix make. Previous versions of the IDE actually used NMAKE makefiles, but this isn't true anymore. You can write NMAKE makefiles yourself if you want, but it sounds like you want to know what the IDE does.
Starting with VS2010, the build system changes to MSBUILD, which bertelmonster mentioned. But not in VS2008.
In VC++ 6.0, C++ projects have their own build engine integrated into msdev.exe.
In VS2002 - VS2008, it's a separate tool, VCBUILD. But you can still invoke it via the main IDE, devenv.exe, see the /BUILD option, and devenv is the best way if you have inter-project dependencies in your solution.
VS9 doesn't use makefiles by default the way Linux-flavored IDEs might. Instead, VisualStudio uses 'solution' and 'project' files. A Project file (*.vcproj for C/C++ projects) is basically a replacement for makefiles, and contains instructions, compiler directives, flags and everything else needed to compile a single 'project'. In this parlance, a project is a single output file, such as an EXE or DLL. But this same mechanism can be used to produce any kind of output, including TLBs, text files, widgets and ice cream cones (if your machine has the capable hardware :) )
A 'solution' is a collection of projects, and the solution file (*.sln) contains lists of projects needed to build an entire application suite, typically. It also contains dependancy information, so that the projects are built in the correct orders.
Solution and project files are human-readable text, but in the VS world you would virtually never want to edit these files yourself the way you would tweak a makefile by hand. Instead, you would use the IDE to change compiler flags, preprocessor directives, output directories, and all the rest.
That is how VS works by default, but VS is also capable of using makefiles in much the same way as Linux-flavored IDEs. It still uses solution files in this case, so you can mix projects that use makefiles with projects that use project files within the same solution. The VS IDE is actually quite powerful in this regard, and gives you the ability to do pretty much whatever you want. This power however comes with a price -- with so many features and capabilities available in the IDE, it can be rather complex and takes what you might think is an unwarranted ammount of user brainpower to fully understand.
If you want to create a makefile project, you can do so by doing File>New>Project... and then selecting Makefile Project from the main Visual C++ list of project templates.
So I have a visual studio 2008 project setup for a project I've been working on however its a sub project of a rather larger code base which is crossplatform, so in order to make my project complaint with the main source I need to make my project nix compilable.
Is there some way I can generate a makefile based off my vcproject? or if not is there someway I could generate a makefile any other way than writing it manually as it appears confusing as all hell when I open them up.
Microsoft has dropped the support for exporting a solution into a makefile (see this thread). I'm not aware of any external tools that convert VS solutions to makefiles.
But i had some success using CMake. With CMake you describe a project in a textfile and cmake then generates standard makefiles or project descriptions for IDE's (including VS).
Nobody ever writes a Makefile. They take an existing Makefile and modify it.
Get one of the makefiles from the existing projects and adjust it to your project (i.e. replace project name, source/object files, etc).
Other than that, simple makefiles are not so difficult, here's a very short introduction to makefiles to get you started.
I have a number of native C++ libraries (Win32, without MFC) compiling under Visual Studio 2005, and used in a number of solutions.
I'd like to be able to choose to compile and link them as either static libraries or DLLs, depending on the needs of the particular solution in which I'm using them.
What's the best way to do this? I've considered these approaches:
1. Multiple project files
Example: "foo_static.vcproj" vs "foo_dll.vcproj"
Pro: easy to generate for new libraries, not too much manual vcproj munging.
Con: settings, file lists, etc. in two places get out of sync too easily.
2. Single project file, multiple configurations
Example: "Debug | Win32" vs "Debug DLL | Win32", etc.
Pro: file lists are easier to keep in sync; compilation options are somewhat easier to keep in sync
Con: I build for both Win32 and Smart Device targets, so I already have multiple configurations; I don't want to make my combinatorial explosion worse ("Static library for FooPhone | WinMobile 6", "Dynamic library for FooPhone | WinMobile 6", "Static library for BarPda | WinMobile 6", etc.
Worse Con: VS 2005 has a bad habit of assuming that if you have a configuration defined for platform "Foo", then you really need it for all other platforms in your solution, and haphazardly inserts all permutations of configuration/platform configurations all over the affected vcproj files, whether valid or not. (Bug filed with MS; closed as WONTFIX.)
3. Single project file, selecting static or dynamic via vsprops files
Example: store the appropriate vcproj fragments in property sheet files, then apply the "FooApp Static Library" property sheet to config/platform combinations when you want static libs, and apply the "FooApp DLL" property sheet when you want DLLs.
Pros: This is what I really want to do!
Cons: It doesn't seem possible. It seems that the .vcproj attribute that switches between static and dynamic libraries (the ConfigurationType attribute of the Configuration element) isn't overrideable by the .vsprops file. Microsoft's published schema for these files lists only <Tool> and <UserMacro> elements.
EDIT: In case someone suggests it, I've also tried a more "clever" version of #3, in which I define a .vsprops containing a UserMacro called "ModuleConfigurationType" with a value of either "2" (DLL) or "4" (static library), and changed the configuration in the .vcproj to have ConfigurationType="$(ModuleConfigurationType)". Visual Studio silently and without warning removes the attribute and replaces it with ConfigurationType="1". So helpful!
Am I missing a better solution?
I may have missed something, but why can't you define the DLL project with no files, and just have it link the lib created by the other project?
And, with respect to settings, you can factor them out in vsprop files...
There is an easy way to create both static and dll lib versions in one project.
Create your dll project. Then do the following to it:
Simply create an nmake makefile or .bat file that runs the lib tool.
Basically, this is just this:
lib /NOLOGO /OUT:<your_lib_pathname> #<<
<list_all_of_your_obj_paths_here>
<<
Then, in your project, add a Post Build Event where the command just runs the .bat file (or nmake or perl). Then, you will always get both a dll and a static lib.
I'll refrain from denigrating visual studio for not allowing the tool for this to exist in a project just before Linker (in the tool flow).
I think the typical way this is done is choice 2 above. It is what I use and what I have seen done by a number of libraries and companies.
If you find it does not work for you then by all means use something else.
Good luck.
I prefer 2 configurations way.
Setup all common settings via 'All configurations' item in a project properties windows. After it separated settings. And it's done. Let's go coding.
Also there is very good feature named 'Batch build', which builds specified configurations by turn.
Multiple projects are the best way to go - this is the configuration i have most widely seen in umpteen no of projects that i have come across.
That said, it might be also possible to implement the third option by modifying your vcproj files on the fly from external tools(like a custom vbscript), that you could invoke from a make file. You can use shell variables to control the behavior of the tool.
Note that you should still use use visual studio to make the build, the makefile should only launch your external tool if required to make the mods and then follow that by the actual build command
I use Visual Studio 6.0 (Still) due to issues that are preventing us from Migrating to VS2005 or newer. Rebuilding causes severe issues (everything breaks)... so many of us are considering lobbying a migration to GnuC++ moving forward in a structured way to eventually get us off of licensed Visual Studio products and onto Eclipse and Linux.
In Unix/Linux it is easy to build for all configurations.. so I can't believe what a time and productivity sink it is to try and accomplish the same task in Visual Studio. For VS6.0 I have so far found that only having two separate projects seems to be workable. I haven't yet tried the multiple configuration technique, but will see if it works in the older VS6.0.
Why not go for version 1 and generate the second set of project files from the first using a script or something. That way you know that the differences are JUST the pieces required to build a dll or static lib.
Does anyone have experience using makefiles for Visual Studio C++ builds (under VS 2005) as opposed to using the project/solution setup. For us, the way that the project/solutions work is not intuitive and leads to configuruation explosion when you are trying to tweak builds with specific compile time flags.
Under Unix, it's pretty easy to set up a makefile that has its default options overridden by user settings (or other configuration setting). But doing these types of things seems difficult in Visual Studio.
By way of example, we have a project that needs to get build for 3 different platforms. Each platform might have several configurations (for example debug, release, and several others). One of my goals on a newly formed project is to have a solution that can have all platform build living together, which makes building and testing code changes easier since you aren't having to open 3 different solutions just to test your code. But visual studio will require 3 * (number of base configurations) configurations. i.e. PC Debug, X360 Debug, PS3 Debug, etc.
It seems like a makefile solution is much better here. Wrapped with some basic batchfiles or scripts, it would be easy to keep the configuration explotion to a minimum and only maintain a small set of files for all of the different builds that we have to do.
However, I have no experience with makefiles under visual studio and would like to know if others have experiences or issues that they can share.
Thanks.
(post edited to mention that these are C++ builds)
I've found some benefits to makefiles with large projects, mainly related to unifying the location of the project settings. It's somewhat easier to manage the list of source files, include paths, preprocessor defines and so on, if they're all in a makefile or other build config file. With multiple configurations, adding an include path means you need to make sure you update every config manually through Visual Studio's fiddly project properties, which can get pretty tedious as a project grows in size.
Projects which use a lot of custom build tools can be easier to manage too, such as if you need to compile pixel / vertex shaders, or code in other languages without native VS support.
You'll still need to have various different project configurations however, since you'll need to differentiate the invocation of the build tool for each config (e.g. passing in different command line options to make).
Immediate downsides that spring to mind:
Slower builds: VS isn't particularly quick at invoking external tools, or even working out whether it needs to build a project in the first place.
Awkward inter-project dependencies: It's fiddly to set up so that a dependee causes the base project to build, and fiddlier to make sure that they get built in the right order. I've had some success getting SCons to do this, but it's always a challenge to get working well.
Loss of some useful IDE features: Edit & Continue being the main one!
In short, you'll spend less time managing your project configurations, but more time coaxing Visual Studio to work properly with it.
Visual studio is being built on top of the MSBuild configurations files. You can consider *proj and *sln files as makefiles. They allow you to fully customize build process.
While it's technically possible, it's not a very friendly solution within Visual Studio. It will be fighting you the entire time.
I recommend you take a look at NAnt. It's a very robust build system where you can do basically anything you need to.
Our NAnt script does this on every build:
Migrate the database to the latest version
Generate C# entities off of the database
Compile every project in our "master" solution
Run all unit tests
Run all integration tests
Additionally, our build server leverages this and adds 1 more task, which is generating Sandcastle documentation.
If you don't like XML, you might also take a look at Rake (ruby), Bake/BooBuildSystem (Boo), or Psake (PowerShell)
You can use nant to build the projects individually thus replacing the solution and have 1 coding solution and no build solutions.
1 thing to keep in mind, is that the solution and csproj files from vs 2005 and up are msbuild scripts. So if you get acquainted with msbuild you might be able to wield the existing files, to make vs easier, and to make your deployment easier.
We have a similar set up as the one you are describing. We support at least 3 different platforms, so the we found that using CMake to mange the different Visual Studio solutions. Set up can be a bit painful, but it pretty much boils down to reading the docs and a couple of tutorials. You should be able to do virtually everything you can do by going to the properties of the projects and the solution.
Not sure if you can have all three platforms builds living together in the same solution, but you can use CruiseControl to take care of your builds, and running your testing scripts as often as needed.