I think I got confused by the "Use external build" option, which was probably checked (I don't remember what the default option is with IDEA 12.0.3 ).
Anyway, thank you again for your help. Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Alexander Doroshko [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2013 12:57 À : [email protected] Objet : Re: SDK 4.9 vs SDK 4.x compilation time in IDEA Hi, IntelliJ IDEA Built-in compiler shell is future-compatible and it already supports Apache Flex SDK 4.9. To have it working please check following: - Uncheck 'Use external build' at Settings/Prefereces | Compiler (this step won't be needed in IntelliJ IDEA 12.1, see details [1]) - Make sure 'Built-in compiler shell' is checked at Settings/Prefereces | Compiler | Flex Compiler - Make sure that all Flash build configurations of all modules use the same SDK (Project Structure dialog). If there are 2 or more different SDKs IntelliJ IDEA switches to mxmlc/compc processes. I'll give some more comments for your issue in YouTrack [2] [1] http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-98096 [2] http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-100559 Alexander Doroshko JetBrains, Inc http://www.jetbrains.com "Develop with pleasure!" On 06.02.2013 15:38, Maurice Amsellem wrote: > Hi, > > I have made some benchmarks compiling the same project with SDK 4.1 and SDK > 4.9 using IDEA (12.0.3). > > As you may know, IDEA has a super-fast built-in flex compiler, but > unfortunately, it is not (yet?) compatible with SDK 4.9, so IDEA switches > back to compc/mxmlc when SDK 4.9 is selected. > > I have filed a ticket on IDEA bug base to ask about that: > > http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-100559 > > In short, compilation time is 2.5 slower with SDK 4.9 with mxmlc/compc than > with SDK 4.x with built-in shell. > > I know this is not related to SDK 4.9, but mxmlc/compc that is slower than > IDEA's built-in compiler shell. > However, do you have any idea why IDEA cannot use its built-in shell with SDK > 4.9? > Is it just because it has not been tested yet, or is there a more fundamental > reason? > > Regards > > Maurice > >
