[En-Nut-Discussion] New build process

[Ole Reinhardt]

> >- Saving of a modified conf file does not work (needs to use saveas).
> 
> Might be a Linux related problem. In fact I created all conf
> files with the tool, but on Win32. I'm not that experienced
> with Linux file creation modes.

Ok, better have to say: The save options is always disabled... (gray)

> You have to keep the mouse on the left side of the list.
> Seems to be a GTK problem.

Thanks. I'll try this...

> 
> >- the new build process does not support dependencies in the right way.
> >   I always have to "make clean; make" even if I changed a file...
> 
> Right, but that had been a problem with Nut/OS from the
> very first beginning. If you change a header file, the
> command line make doesn't recognize this. So it's better
> for now to use 'make clean' first. Someone have to spend
> some hours to add 'make dep'.

No need of doing a make dep.... but we should include a -MD to all
cflags and add a -include($DEPS) at the end of every makefile, where
($DEPS) shoudl consist of a file-list like "abc.d def.d ghi.d" and so on
(could be automaticaly created from the source list...)

I could try to add this some time...

> Yes, Ole and believe me I'd have included them if there'd
> have been more time. Btw. the Configurator allows to include
> them to a specific compiler environment only. So if you are
> not able to test them on ICCAVR, don't include them there.
> This saves me from the burden to test every new contribution
> for all environments.

Ok :-) I'll try to do so if I have some of it...

Can I also influenece the creation of the makefiles from within the lua
scripts?

> >- Would be great if nutconf would only create one file every c file
> >   would need to include. Nutconf only should save the option if the
> >   default setting is overwritten. This way we would not need a new build
> >   process and the dependencies would work again.
> 
> I do not agree here and I don't even think this is possible,
> if I got you correctly. make is able to create dependency
> files and why not use this feature.

Hmmm I think it  should be possible as we mostly declare some defines...
these defines could run into one file... This file would then look like
a hardware definition file. But I don't know how complex such a file
could become. It would give a better overview over the changed settings.

> I won't blame you at all but appreciate your comments
> very much. As I said, it's not finished, but it's a
> framework to continue with. If you look into the Lua
> scripts, you will soon find out how to modify them.
> They are so simple right now, that Lua knowledge is not
> required. One hint: Beware the commas!

Ok, thanks :-) I'll have a look to it and add some lines next week :-)

Bye,

Ole

-- 
kernel concepts    Tel: +49-271-771091-14
Dreisbachstr. 24   Fax: +49-271-771091-19
D-57250 Netphen    E+ : +49-177-7420433
--