Command Line Compiling.

[MichaelB]

The finial compilation for our product is done on our compiler box where all source code is checked out from CVS.

Ideally we would like two executables produced a Release version that had no Eureka logging in it and a Debug Version that does.

However we do not want to have to have two Product.BPR files ( one for release and one for debugging ) As keeping these files synced is just one more thing to forget.

What is the best way to achieve this with EurekaLog, is it even possible?

How Cleaver is the emake program? Does it require a Mak file the original BPR file had Eureka logs settings turned on in the IDE?

I considered running Diff on the BPR with and without EurekaLog to produce a patch and applying this to the Release BPR file before compiling a debug version of the product. Would this work?

Thanks in advance.

Michael

[admin]

Hi,

MichaelB wrote:
> The finial compilation for our product is done on our compiler box where
> all source code is checked out from CVS.
>
> Ideally we would like two executables produced a Release version that
> had no Eureka logging in it and a Debug Version that does.
>
> However we do not want to have to have two Product.BPR files ( one for
> release and one for debugging ) As keeping these files synced is just
> one more thing to forget.
>
> What is the best way to achieve this with EurekaLog, is it even
> possible?
>
> How Cleaver is the emake program? Does it require a Mak file the
> original BPR file had Eureka logs settings turned on in the IDE?
>
> I considered running Diff on the BPR with and without EurekaLog to
> produce a patch and applying this to the Release BPR file before
> compiling a debug version of the product. Would this work?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Michael

Yes I think this can works fine! :)

--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!

[Jouni Aro]

Hi,

I've just been evaluating, but actually I have also been thinking about
this. Now Eurekalog adds its entry 'ExceptionLog' into the project uses
list, but I have been modifying it to be surrounded with {$IFDEF
EUREKALOG}, to be able to compile with or without EL without modifying
the source. It seems that this define is required in the project options
in any case.

So, I would recommend that EL would always add its uses entry surrounded
by an ifdef. You should of course use these ifdefs also around your "EL
code" elsewhere in your project.

And with basic make, it is also easy to define or undefine EUREKALOG.

BTW: I haven't figured out what's different in ecc32 to dcc32 (or emake
vs make)?

admin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> MichaelB wrote:
>
>> The finial compilation for our product is done on our compiler box where
>> all source code is checked out from CVS.
>>
>> Ideally we would like two executables produced a Release version that
>> had no Eureka logging in it and a Debug Version that does.
>>
>> However we do not want to have to have two Product.BPR files ( one for
>> release and one for debugging ) As keeping these files synced is just
>> one more thing to forget.
>>
>> What is the best way to achieve this with EurekaLog, is it even
>> possible?
>>
>> How Cleaver is the emake program? Does it require a Mak file the
>> original BPR file had Eureka logs settings turned on in the IDE?
>>
>> I considered running Diff on the BPR with and without EurekaLog to
>> produce a patch and applying this to the Release BPR file before
>> compiling a debug version of the product. Would this work?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Yes I think this can works fine! :)
>

[admin]

Hi,

Jouni Aro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just been evaluating, but actually I have also been thinking about
> this. Now Eurekalog adds its entry 'ExceptionLog' into the project uses
> list, but I have been modifying it to be surrounded with {$IFDEF
> EUREKALOG}, to be able to compile with or without EL without modifying
> the source. It seems that this define is required in the project options
> in any case.
>
> So, I would recommend that EL would always add its uses entry surrounded
> by an ifdef. You should of course use these ifdefs also around your "EL
> code" elsewhere in your project.

It's a good suggestion, I'll think on! :)

>
> And with basic make, it is also easy to define or undefine EUREKALOG.
>
> BTW: I haven't figured out what's different in ecc32 to dcc32 (or emake
> vs make)?

The ecc32 (or emake) is a wrapper that add the EurekaLog debug
information into the final compiled file. :)

>
> admin wrote:
>
>> [...]


--
Best regards...

Fabio Dell'Aria.
----------------
http://www.eurekalog.com
Catch every BUG, every time!