|
> -----Ursprgliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona [SMTP:] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 24. November 2004 16:43 > An: Bernhard Holzmayer; 'ADSP' > Betreff: Re: [adsp] Compiler error (Sharc 21161) ?! > > Hi Bernhard, > > Something similar happened to me recently (although I > found out that it was MY mistake). > > See this thread at comp.dsp http://tinyurl.com/7y96v > > Additionally, see this thread, which I started and YOU > replied to (and almost solved) > http://tinyurl.com/3l44m > > Regards, > > JaaC Hi Jaime, though I don't see the relation to the second URL you gave (probably because I'm ignorant concerning your context), I remember it well. It's silly: since I'm under some time pressure, I didn't take the time to scan comp.dsp thoroughly. Which in this case would have helped to solve my problem a little quicker... But behind that issue is another one, which bothers me for a while now: VisualDSP has widely improved, and I benefit of that, because the compiler does a far better job now. However, all the changes in the IDDE led to different situations, where such silly things happen, just because I get lost between the lots of dialog boxes and tab sheets where options can be set up. I had been sure that I did enable the warning about missing prototypes, since I always work with most warnings enabled. Usually that's the better way for me than hunting behind avoidable bugs, even if it means that I must take some detour to get the toolchain satisfied. Obviously I was completely ignorant about that false setup. I guess it happened bc. I set up a new project, instead of copying as I most often do. That's a thing which hasn't improved during the latest changes of VisualDSP (maybe even got worse...). IMHO the correct way to implement such features would be to enable all such warnings by default, so that the unaware user (like me) always gets the security net activated. Bernhard |
|
|
AW: Compiler error (Sharc 21161) ?!
Started by ●November 25, 2004
Reply by ●November 25, 20042004-11-25
|
> However, all the changes in the IDDE led to > different situations, where such > silly things happen, > just because I get lost between the lots of dialog > boxes and tab sheets where > options can be set up. You are true in the sense that time after time more and more dialogs appear for option configuration. Specifically, the IDDE was almost the same between VDSP++ 2.0 and VDSP++ 3.0, as for VDSP++ 3.5, many, many more options (checkbxes) appeared. Personally I prefer this than having to deal manually (or via scripts) with command line options. Let's hope that ADI guys be aware of this, and don't make the IDDE as crowded as the development "Studio" of another DSP vendor whose name I prefer to omit. > I had been sure that I did enable the warning about > missing prototypes, since I > always work with most warnings enabled. > Usually that's the better way for me than hunting > behind avoidable bugs, even > if it means that I must take some detour to get the > toolchain satisfied. That could be called "best-practices"? Anyway, that can help a lot, as in your case. > IMHO the correct way to implement such features > would be to enable all such > warnings by default, > so that the unaware user (like me) always gets the > security net activated. Have you suggested that to ADI? What about cross-posting this to comp.dsp, to make some sort of survey about what other users say? Regards, JaaC ===== Jaime Andr Aranguren Cardona __________________________________ |
