Re: Targets with overrides
Gary Thomas <gary <at> mlbassoc.com>
2003-10-02 13:27:44 GMT
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:11, John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Gary
> One of the reasons we have avoided this technique in public sources is that
> the implementation is not fully integrated with the rest of the CDL
> library. For example, the values you provide for options you override do
> not become the CDL default values. The configtool therefore indicates that
> the options have been changed and allows you to restore the default value
> which would effectively change the target and confuse the "run tests"
> capability of the tool. Without improved integration, I would prefer to
> avoid the use of this technique in the public repository.
I understand, but I think that the potential benefits far outweigh the
problems. If someone wants to mess with options that have been
inferred, then he's asking for trouble anyway. There are already many
other such inferences happening that are not part of target descriptions
In the case I'm most interested in, I have a set of platforms which
share the same HAL but which need very specific setups to run properly.
As is, we have to document the details of how to set this up which can
be sources of errors. If I had a target which described the platform
explicitly, then this source of errors is mitigated. I'd much rather
live with the potential that someone *could* mess up "run tests" in
the ConfigTool than a more serious situation where he can easily turn
his unit into a brick by missing a step in the setups.
> John Dallaway
> eCosCentric Limited