Hi Gerrit,
Gerrit Voss wrote:
>
> well I included renaming into the move part ;-). The problem is that
> after you moved the files locally everything still compiles even if some
> of the other files still reference the old now non existing files. If
> you now change something in the moved/renamed file you will end up with
> two different version being seen. Also if I commit these changes it will
> break the compilation only for those who do a clean / rebuild cycle.
>
> The underlying problem is that it was the easiest way to use the
> compiler to figure out where the moved files were included and this
> does not work anymore ;-(. Often I just forget that I better use
> emacs `find Source -type f \( -name '*.cpp' -o -name '*.h' \) -exec grep
> -q OSGOldFile\.h {} \; -print`
> to find these locations ;-)
OK. Point taken.
I'm not sure how, but we could probably fix that with a reverse dependency that
if not satisfied triggers a remove. Just thinking out loud here.
> Ah, ok I forgot to mention that I do most of my 'serious' debugging
> (that is where I really need a debugger) with Visual Studio because if
> there is one piece of software that is better on Windows it is the
> debugger (all unix debuggers degraded massively over time IMHO).
>
> So changing the wrong file happens quite easily and bit me a couple of
> times so I switched back to edit files outside Visual Studio using
> my usual editor ;-(. It works for me but is not really nice and can
> be confusing in the beginning.
That could be covered with the same reverse dependency, I would hope.
> Actually IIRC which included file was taken also did depend on how it
> was found during compilation. In the global directory or locally because
> of #include "XXX".
Hm, I don't get that one. The compilation should always happen in the instlinks
dir.
> Well on 'fairly' I could agree. It is just a shortcoming I came across
> which is not so nice, one has to be aware of and should be solved
> somehow (if this is possible in a useful amount of time). But with scons
> it is much better than trying the same thing with make ;-).
Something that we agree on! :)
> Anyway it
> affects just the last 5% (max) that are missing to the 100%
> conviction ;-) so nothing to serious, just something to be noted ;-)
>
> And as you can guess if it would have been really serious I already
> would have patched something ;-)
OK. So let's add a ticket for it so that we can think about it later. Can you
do
that?
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
