Adam Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had a quick look at your code. Looks good. I reckon we have a > nice complement of stuff here. Just need to whack it into shape.
+1 - I'd really love it if you two guys could work together. > Biggest difference is a single unified task vs. separate compile and > link tasks. Both approaches have their benefits, I'm neutral on this. > The name of the task is another issue. I think the names I chose > are pretty crap - I'd like something more descriptive, <cppcomp> is > fine. Maybe <cppcompile> or <compilecpp> is better? Ten characters is the maximum length the DefaultLogger's output can deal with (without losing formatting) 8-) - no strong opinion here either. > * additional compiler/linker arguments. > > We both use string attributes here. Perhaps we should make these a > bunch of nested elements instead, and make them CommandLine.Argument > objects - maybe called <compilerarg> and <linkerarg>? Yes, please - this should help us deal with spaces in arguments and all that in a single place. > When debug is set to false in my compile task, it switches on > optimization. It shouldn't really - I was being lazy. We should > add an 'optimize' attribute if we want to support optimization. +1 > Your task requires a compiler be specified. I'd rather we made it > optional, and use a default compiler for the OS the task is running > on. Exactly what the default for a particular OS should be - that's > another issue. If you use a Facade/Factory approach like <javac>, this could be dealt with by the Factory - I'd probably fall back to gcc for all platform's without a defined default compiler - seems to be the most widely ported one. Stefan
