Release/Debug binray naming issue

Jiang · Post by **Jiang** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:12 am

The current irrlicht windows project solutions define quite a few configurations for release/debug and static/shared builds. However, the binary outputs use the same name, "irrlicht.lib", "irrlicht.dll".

This is not convenient for library management, if the user want to put the binary files in the same directory. And even worse, the examples use pragma to detect and link the necessary library, which adds extra difficulties for building both the release and debug applications at the same time.

So, can we

1. Change the naming convention for libraries. Say, add postfix "D" or "d" for debug build. ( -> "irrlichtD.lib", "irrlichtD.dll")

2. For pragma, use "_DEBUG" to distinguish the debug and release build and further link the different libraries using the naming convention defined by step 1.

Another possible solution is, separating the output directory for different configurations and further specify the corresponding library path for different application builds.

Or, I missed something important & difficult?

Regards,

Jiang

vitek · Post by **vitek** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:02 pm

I do not understand why you would want to do this (build both debug and release and keep the files in the same directories). What is your motivation?

Travis

Jiang · Post by **Jiang** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:33 pm

vitek wrote:I do not understand why you would want to do this (build both debug and release and keep the files in the same directories). What is your motivation?

Travis

Do you build your debug version application? If you do so what's your build policy ?

Dorth · Post by **Dorth** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:58 pm

Personally I like to have debug libs in debug and release builds in release, using #ifdef to get the proper lib. I also agree this should be how Irrlicht is built. The biggest convention I have found so far is D right after the name for debug and _d or _dll for the dll build. So:
irrlicht
irrlichtD
irrlicht_dll
irrlichtD_dll

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:04 pm

I'm minded to agree with Jiang and Dorth, but I'm not fanatical about it. Moved to open discussion.

vitek · Post by **vitek** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:00 am

Jiang wrote:
vitek wrote:I do not understand why you would want to do this (build both debug and release and keep the files in the same directories). What is your motivation?

Travis
Do you build your debug version application? If you do so what's your build policy ?

You haven't answered the question. I'm simply asking what your motivation is. You have some sort of build policy requires that you have both debug and release builds in the same directory?

Regardless, I don't use Irrlicht for anything production, so I don't have a build policy.

Travis

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:29 am

It's not much of an issue, but I would (for example) like to be able to unit/regression test against a variety of builds without having to juggle the .a/.lib/.so/.dll files around. OTOH, I could script it easily enough. Small earthquake, not many injured.

CuteAlien · Post by **CuteAlien** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:09 am

I'm also all for different folders&names for the different builds. I only wish I would find a way to create all builds at once somehow in c::b, like some uber-target that builds all the other targets.

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:50 pm

Build target: All ?

C::B command line arguments

CuteAlien · Post by **CuteAlien** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:02 pm

Hm, I see. "Build Target: All" is for some reason no longer available in my projects. Though it wasn't exactly what I needed. I actually wanted to compile all settings - but only for one platform while this also tried to compile the Windows versions on Linux (et vice versa).

Using scripts and command line is probably the way to go.

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:20 pm

It should be available and working in 1.5. The targets are platform specific, so doing a build: All on Windows will only get you the Windows targets, and similarly on Linux.

Puzzled now.

CuteAlien · Post by **CuteAlien** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:42 pm

rogerborg wrote:It should be available and working in 1.5. The targets are platform specific, so doing a build: All on Windows will only get you the Windows targets, and similarly on Linux.
Puzzled now. :?

Eh sorry - I had no time yet to switch my projects to 1.5... don't get confused :-) I was just talking about the experiences I had with it so far in my own experimentations . If this works with 1.5 it will be great and I will try to figure out why it works :-)

edit: Hm, I just tested it - doesn't work. The targets are not platform specific and so c::b tries to compile the Windows versions on Linux. And I have some suspicion that making it platform specific might result in losing the "All" target somehow, as that is what I did in my projects and those don't have this target anymore.

This really does work for you?

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:56 pm

Heh, nice spot. It was "Works For Me" on Windows only. The targets and All build should be sorted on the trunk and on 1.5.X (if we cut a bugfix release). Sorry about that.

Jiang · Post by **Jiang** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:33 pm

Hey rogerborg, Dorth and CuteAlien

I just add a irrlicht build tool project to sourceforge.net, and check it at

http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=31529

HTH,

Jiang

@ rogerborg

I saw you add several testsuites for testing, really good job! However in my build scripts the testsuite generation is disabled for now. Maybe I will add them after further stabilization of them.

Share your thoughts here please.

Regards,

Jiang · Post by **Jiang** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:37 pm

vitek wrote: I don't use Irrlicht for anything production,

Neither do I.

vitek wrote: so I don't have a build policy. Travis

Then I don't believe answering your question really helps here.

Anyway, thanks for your interests.

Regards,

Jiang