KDE/kdevelop [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 25.04.07 02:45:20, David Nolden wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 00:34:38 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > I tried to make the cmake stuff work a bit better, removing static libs
> > (those don't work on windows, AFAIK) and making them shared libs, fixing
> > boost and commonc++ finding and adding include_directories instead of
> > directly including files from other subdirs.
> The package-finding is good.
> 
> But why should static libs not work on windows? When I was programming for 
> windows I was using them all the time.. shared libs should be fine too 
> though.

I'm not sure, but I think you can find it in the svn log of
buildtools/managers/qmake/parser. That was a static lib when I first
wrote it and was converted to a shared lib, IIRC due to building on
windows.

> Imo it looks cleaner having 
> #include "network/common.h"
> etc. instead of
> #include "common.h"
> >from within another folder, because the first case makes clearer what's 
> included.. but however. I must admit the include-directives are a bit messy, 
> I will clean them up a bit.

Hmm, actually you're right. I'll remove the extra include_directories
and only add teamwork/lib and then change the headers to network/.. and
dynamictext/..

> > So far my impression is not that good, there seem to be many unessecary
> > include's, it doesn't compile (strange erros in stl-headers, I guess
> > some conflict between boost, commonc++ and stl) and it produces lots of
> > warning (before I tried to clean the cmake files).
> 
> Now let's keep things separate. Are you trying to compile under windows?

No, this was on my linux box. I just mentioned windows at the start
because the Common-C++ is not easily built.

> What compiler are you using? The code compiles fine at least with any
> compiler above gcc 4.0 I've tried, but MS compilers are known to have
> their problems with C++, and I've used C++ to the max.

Windows uses gcc 3.4, 4.0 won't be available when KDevelop4 is released.
As far as MSVC goes, I'm not sure it still has that many problems, at
least the VC2005 should be able to understand most of the C++ language.

> I've fixed 99,9% of the warings in my last commit.

Thanks.

> > I seriously start to think this should move back into a branch until its
> > more mature.
> 
> The warning are away, the compile-problems should not exist(and if it would 
> still be in a branch noone would have told me that there even is such 
> problems), and I'll clean the includes tomorrow.

The compile problems are probably the same that you saw before removing
the found include dirs. I guess I was a bit frustrated last night after
trying to build the plugin and libs and hitting problems all over the
place.

> > Sorry David, I know you put a lot of work into this and its definetly
> > something that would be cool to have in KDevelop, but I just don't see
> > how somebody dives into this codebase when you don't have time anymore.
> 
> My time is rare, but I'm willing to invest some time to clean the code a bit 
> up and make the functionality work correctly. But I'm not willing to do "not 
> so important" things above that, like adding a qt-backend to the 
> networking-library.

If the code is readable and documented I'm fine with that (and I don't
expect documentation on the level of Qt docs, just what a function is
supposed to do, so we don't have to read its code all the time).

Andreas

-- 
You will gain money by a fattening action.