On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:08:56 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > You have to pass the command line options according to the setting >> >from the IDE. What about parsing the compiler output to be able to >> >find out location of possible errors and giving it back to the IDE? >> Not so easy as for command-line options. Compiler output not standard >> (depended on language file). I prefer to make changes in compiler >> sources. Or something else. I don't know yet. > Parsing is the easier part probably, in fact - FP IDE already does >the same, so you can use code from its sources. Finding the way to >pass this information to the IDE might be more difficult, IMHO (maybe >it isn't, I haven't tried to study it).
Well. I can get line number and column number with error, but can't get error code. Currently fpc outputs 2 types of messages (example in my native language): doscalls.inc(3174,10) Error: FORWARD не найден DOSREGISTERPERFCTRS(formal,formal,LONGINT) bsedos.pas(112) Fatal: Обнаpyжено 32 ошибок пpи компилиpовании модyля, останавливаемся So I can get filename, linenumber, columnnumber and message itself. I consider no more info needed. > BTW, you can easily invoke >the compiler with whatever language file, since it's you who starts >the (external) compiler and passes the parameters. But I think error >parsing doesn't depend on the chosen message file anyway. May be yes, may be not. Check needed. But I don't see any problems with compiler <-> ide data transportation. But I see problems with debugger. ----------- To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe sibyl end