Return-Path: 
 <ant-dev-return-15012-apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 18871 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2001 06:36:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 18860 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 06:36:45 -0000
X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to
 bodewig@apache.org using -f
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: C/C++ Compile Task - Another
References: <CLEMKEJLBJDGBHEDNCPHIEDECKAA.adammurdoch_ml@yahoo.com>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: 21 Jun 2001 08:36:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: "Adam Murdoch"'s message of "Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:48:09 +1000"
Message-ID: <m3elsel4ot.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 46
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Adam Murdoch <adammurdoch_ml@yahoo.com> 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
either.

> * 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.

+1

> 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.

Stefan