ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Raich <>
Subject Re: Ant for C/C++?
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:55 GMT
The cpptasks part of the ant-contrib package works very well to do 
what you need, if your needs fit within its limitations.  Otherwise, 
you may need to consider alternatives.

I am using Ant for C/C++ compiles, but had to invoke the compiler and 
linker commands myself with <apply>, looping through my fileset and 
doing my logging with other ant-contrib tasks, and this can make it 
harder to get the detailed build auditing logs you might 
want.  Listing compiler error messages is a challenge.

I chose Ant instead of make because I found it easier to configure 
the necessary infrastructure on the over-half-dozen different 
platforms and architectures for my multiplatform builds.  But 
cpptasks was a disappointment because it does not support all of the 
compilers I needed to use, and it does not allow you to specify the 
path to the compiler (must be configured in your environment 
instead).  In particular, it could not distinguish properly between 
the CC and cc compilers on Solaris, and xlC and cc on AIX, 
distinctions that are critical for me.  And I had trouble separating 
the compiles and links into separate tasks.

I'm told that it's "simple" to add more compilers to cpptasks, but 
that was just one too many more barriers to getting the multiplatform 
configurations all working, and I went with the <apply> solution 
instead.  I'm pretty happy with how it works but wish cpptasks 
out-of-the-box had been up to my needs.

At 10:47 AM 8/26/2009, Robin Parker wrote:
>Hi all,
>We have an application written in C/C++ (no java) that is currently
>built using recursive clearmake, the source being stored in Rational
>ClearCase.  The build process currently tries to build parts of the
>application several times and so it needs an overhaul.
>There are currently two opinions on the table for this; rewrite the
>makefiles and continue using clearmake or use ant (and cpptasks).
>What are everyones thoughts here?
>Are there any advantages to using Ant in this type of environment?
>If we use ant will we retain the same level of build auditing and
>configuration records?
>Does ant support parallel/distributed builds?  (ok, maybe I should
>rtfm for this one)
>Thanks in advance,
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message