ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: C/C++ Compile Task - Another
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2001 06:36:50 GMT
Adam Murdoch <> wrote:

> I've had a quick look at your code.  Looks good.  I reckon we have a
> nice complement of stuff here.  Just need to whack it into shape.

+1 - I'd really love it if you two guys could work together.

> Biggest difference is a single unified task vs. separate compile and
> link tasks.

Both approaches have their benefits, I'm neutral on this.

> The name of the task is another issue.  I think the names I chose
> are pretty crap - I'd like something more descriptive, <cppcomp> is
> fine.  Maybe <cppcompile> or <compilecpp> is better?

Ten characters is the maximum length the DefaultLogger's output can
deal with (without losing formatting) 8-) - no strong opinion here

> * additional compiler/linker arguments.
> We both use string attributes here.  Perhaps we should make these a
> bunch of nested elements instead, and make them CommandLine.Argument
> objects - maybe called <compilerarg> and <linkerarg>?

Yes, please - this should help us deal with spaces in arguments and
all that in a single place.

> When debug is set to false in my compile task, it switches on
> optimization.  It shouldn't really - I was being lazy.  We should
> add an 'optimize' attribute if we want to support optimization.


> Your task requires a compiler be specified.  I'd rather we made it
> optional, and use a default compiler for the OS the task is running
> on.  Exactly what the default for a particular OS should be - that's
> another issue.

If you use a Facade/Factory approach like <javac>, this could be dealt
with by the Factory - I'd probably fall back to gcc for all platform's
without a defined default compiler - seems to be the most widely
ported one.


View raw message