Difference between revisions of "CDT/Obsolete/ScannerDiscovery61/DougThoughts"
< CDT | Obsolete | ScannerDiscovery61
m (Jonah.kichwacoders.com moved page CDT/ScannerDiscovery61/DougThoughts to CDT/Obsolete/ScannerDiscovery61/DougThoughts) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* There are too many layers between IScannerInfo and the places where that info get's generated. | * There are too many layers between IScannerInfo and the places where that info get's generated. | ||
* We should be able to ask the build model for scanner discovery information. | * We should be able to ask the build model for scanner discovery information. | ||
| − | ** | + | * We should be able to find the compiler ITool for a given source file and ask it for it's IScannerInfo. |
| + | * Tool chain providers could then participate in that. | ||
| + | * Still need framework for build output parsing, maybe with the help of the ITools, but at least make the collected info available to them. | ||
| + | * Could add in other frameworks for things like dwarf. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:03, 22 January 2020
Here's my current thinking, just a brainstorm of ideas.
- There are too many layers between IScannerInfo and the places where that info get's generated.
- We should be able to ask the build model for scanner discovery information.
- We should be able to find the compiler ITool for a given source file and ask it for it's IScannerInfo.
- Tool chain providers could then participate in that.
- Still need framework for build output parsing, maybe with the help of the ITools, but at least make the collected info available to them.
- Could add in other frameworks for things like dwarf.