Automatic Xref Tool for C++/QT/KDELibs

Daniel Berlin dan at
Thu Dec 13 12:52:06 GMT 2001

On Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 07:35  AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 03:40  AM, Eva Brucherseifer wrote:
>> On Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2001 19:41, you wrote:
>>> Which is what cppx is, effectively.
>>> Well, okay, it slightly changes the dump format.
>>> You could also use something like gcc-xml.
>> The problem with cppx is, that it patches the compiler. And since I 
>> don't
>> want to exchange or recompile the compiler, I cannot use this tool. I 
>> guess
>> most developers are happy with their compilers and don't want to change
>> anything.
> Errr, once could view the patched gcc as just another tool.
> Nobody says you have to replace your default compiler with it.
> Your argument makes little sense.
> --Dan

Let me expand a bit further.
1. Recompiling the compiler is no harder than compiling any other tool. 
In fact, it's probably easier. GCC distributions are built so they can 
be compiled with a minimum of tools. You don't even need bison, for 
instance.  This is done on purpose.  GCC is not difficult, or even all 
that time consuming, to recompile.  It takes less time to rebuild gcc on 
my machine than it does to recompile  most other things.
2. Making a gcc that uses a different name than "gcc" is trivial.  you 
just add --program-suffix=<whatever> to configure, and when you "make 
install", you'll end up with "gcc-<whatever>" being the binary name.
3.  Nobody has asked any developer to change their compiler.

If you really think any of this is too difficult for your developers, 
than distribute modified gcc binaries for whatever platforms you have 
access to, and put the source up so that people on other platforms can 
build it as well.

Where's the big deal here?


to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-request at with the following body:
unsubscribe »your-email-address«

More information about the KDevelop mailing list