It seems to work correctly with the attached patch, which tries to go
through the "regular" code for these special compiler macros. The patch is
definitely not clean yet, though.
It may actually be better to automatically register Macro objects for
these, so the macros can be resolved normally (an
> It seems to work correctly with the attached patch, which tries to go
> through the "regular" code for these special compiler macros. The patch is
> definitely not clean yet, though.
Thats Why I posted it to pastebin instead of commiting it, it was to
clarify the idea for a solution.
> It may act
It does not help the semantic analyzer in your case, but would help if used to
make some function names unique for example.
Generally, this is really just the "normal" preprocessor behavior, which is
required in any case.
The problem is not that the token is being replaced, but instead that the
Am 10.09.13 16:28, schrieb Erik Verbruggen:
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 14:57, Simon Schäfer wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I try to understand some of the code of the creator, because I would
>> like to remove it, it is the reason of a bug (QTCREATORBUG-8036, it
>> still effects master) that annoys me. I can'
On Sep 10, 2013, at 14:57, Simon Schäfer wrote:
> Hello
>
> I try to understand some of the code of the creator, because I would
> like to remove it, it is the reason of a bug (QTCREATORBUG-8036, it
> still effects master) that annoys me. I can't figure out what it is used
> for. The code I am
Hello
I try to understand some of the code of the creator, because I would
like to remove it, it is the reason of a bug (QTCREATORBUG-8036, it
still effects master) that annoys me. I can't figure out what it is used
for. The code I am talking about is in pp-engine.cpp:
bool Preprocessor::handleId
I think Creator used to detect changes to the .pro file and autmatically
ran qmake back in the 4.7ish days? Maybe we can automatically run qmake
if the modified date/time on the .pro file is newer than a last ran
qmake date/time (this could be stored in the .pro.user file I guess).
I'm going ah
On 10 September 2013 12:57, Elias Steurer wrote:
> Hello sierdzio,
>
> I admit it is not very easy to see but I tried to combine both ways. You see
> the little down arrow an the Kartoffel.js and dropdown.js tab? My idea behind
> that is to get to the last edited files quickly but also have the
> > I have the choice between supporting an existing patch that comes from a
> > CMake user which is declared by him as "serving the purpose" and
> > supporting an approach that does not have a patch
>
> A superior approach which will serve more than one user. It will instead
> serve all CMake use
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM, hatred wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Heh... I don't have access to the global git repos via ssh & git
> protocols, so I can't clone repo from codereview.qt-project.org :-( Can
> code review tool assept changes via e-mail (git format-patch ..., git
> send-email)?
>
>
>
Hi Tobias,
Heh... I don't have access to the global git repos via ssh & git protocols,
so I can't clone repo from codereview.qt-project.org :-( Can code review
tool assept changes via e-mail (git format-patch ..., git send-email)?
2013/9/10 Tobias Hunger
>
> On Sep 10, 2013 8:48 AM, "hatred"
Hi,
As someone who is using QtCreator and happy about how it works, I want to
add some words:
1. NICE WORK. Keep them coming, even if we all say no and don't like
them.
2. The main feature of QtCreator is that it is a big editor, and most of
the UI is kept to the "canvas" - the text
On Sep 10, 2013 8:48 AM, "hatred" wrote:
> So I prepare patch that helps me to work with perforce and fix top-level
directory detection issue: http://pastebin.com/TE8Vey54
Hey, thanks for investigating!
Unfortunately I can only accept contributions that are sent in via
https://codereview.qt-proj
13 matches
Mail list logo
