good -O
I changed the concept of active builder to become a property of the 'builder' and it is also saved in the XML file.
Ok - I dunno what that means but I'm sure its an improvement
Why dont u name the new builder as 'Cobra builder'?
Because while I did the new builder to support cobra
thats not the only thing it would work for - It'll work for any system that had a one step transform from a bunch of source files to an executable
(e.g various basic compilers, Java, C#). Its just a simple variant on the existing 2 step builder ( source -> objs -> executable)
- Do you need the 'Jobs' fields in the GUI? - if not can I remove them?
Umm - is that with reference to the commented adding an 'unspecified' value to the jobs/njobs combobox?
cobra (compiler) has a different setting for parallelising its compilation (switch passed to the cobra builder/compiler invocation) so its not required as such..
It'd probably be useful if that field could be accessed as (another) macro so a command line could be built using it but the idea
is/was to provide a setting that meant ignore this field ( and dont generate a switch value for it either) so that an alternative build tool than gmake
( that doesnt use the -j switch for that) could be specified.
Actually,for this a more general fix would be for that field to include both the switch value and the number of processes ( rather than just the number of processes)
e.g. '
-j 2' rather than currently '
2' say
That way for a gmake based builder it would work correctly as now but if you wished to specify a different builder (like cobra) you could specify the correct switch for that
or leave it out altogether
( I think I alluded to this in my original discussion posting in attempting to specify cobra as a builder but failing cos the CL code always added a '-j' switch)
perhaps should provide another 'generic builder' (+ GUI screen) that had no gmake dependencies and did no additional additions to its specified executable and args but only provided a way to access the list of (source ) files in the project and just (attempted to) run the provided build commandline..
..
Whatever changes you think necessary/reasonable are fine - I'll come back with something if they dont fly for me
What regression testing (nothing has broken) do you do?
If you described this for contributors ( or better automated it) you might save yourself some checking overhead ....