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 �� ������
DOSREGISTERPERFCTRS(formal,formal,LONGINT)
bsedos.pas(112) Fatal: ����py���� 32 ������ �p� �������p������ ���y��, ���������������
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
