[En-Nut-Discussion] New build process

[Harald Kipp]

Ole,

At 16:06 16.09.2004 +0200, you wrote:
> > >- 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)

Ah yes, this is the same here and I had been to lazy
to correct this. The function is activated only
when changing check boxes.


>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...

That was, what I wanted to say somehow, but didn't really. :-)



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

In two ways:

1. Many components specify 'requires'. If there is no
related 'provides' active, then the component is not
added to the Makefile. More precisely, the list of
sources is not added in that case.

2. Strings specified in makedefs are added to NutConf.mk.

One may ask why to use Lua for such simple things. Well,
the Configurator is far from what will be possible in
the future. The quoted strings may contain Lua scripts
themselves, allowing something like "if blah==fasel return 0
else return 1". My idea is to use the exclamation mark
in front of the string to distinguish between values and
scripts. Not sure yet and it doesn't work with the current
release.



> > >- 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.

That was my initial attempt too, if you look to the
old coconut.h and others. But memory layout is a good
example, where this will not be a good idea. Why have
10 different files with RAM size definitions, which are
actually used by all systems. I discovered, that when
using _one_ include file, nutinit can be done without
#ifdefs. CPU timing is a similar example.



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

Bye,
Harald

#ifndef OLE

Hi all,

here we can see a typical German company where everyone
leaves the office on Thursday afternoon with the words
"Have a nice weekend, see you on Tuesday."

Harald ;-)

#endif