How can an incremental build using IncrediBuild detect when a source file has been deleted?
When I modify a source file it will be recompiled and the corresponding dll relinked -- but deleting the same file does nothing, even when a complete rebuild would fail. How can IncrediBuild be instructed to check for deleted files?
UPDATE
I understand that Visual Studio behaves the same way, so it is not really a bug of IncrediBuild. Nonetheless I seek to remedy this situation in a Good Way. Considering that the files being deleted are known, perhaps it is possible to implement a script that removes the corresponding object files or similar. Or perhaps there is a better way?
Modifying a source file and deleting a source file are two different things.
The scenario you are describing is a proper incremental build behavior and you will see the same behavior when building with Visual Studio (without IncrediBuild). When deleting a file and then performing an incremental build, a link step will be executed by the build system and fail whether you are using IncrediBuild or regular Visual Studio builds.
Related
Visual Studio 2010 is known for causing missed or unwanted rebuilds. Both are annoying. There are numerous posts on the topic.
I have observed that whenever you switch the Configuration or the Platform, the next Build will be a Rebuild. For the same reason, a Batch Build always performs a full Batch Rebuild.
So my question is specifically: is there a way to avoid that, after a switch (Configuration or Platform), the build turns to a rebuild.
As mentionned in the question comments, the problem comes from the "Intermediate Directory" pointing to same directory for every platform/configuration. The object files are then outputted in the same directory and creates conflicts when you change the configuration/platform, thus forcing a rebuild.
To avoid this problem, I recommend setting the Intermediate Directory to something like this:
$(SolutionDir)build\$(Configuration)\$(Platform)\
I'm using Bazaar and Visual Studio 2010 in a C# project. I have prepared an ignore list but still I think all the files in Solution Output directory could be ignored.
I search a lot but nobody had mentioned it. So I'm going to know if I can ignore this directory because output files are changing regularly and seems are not important for repository copy.
What do you suggest about this issue ?
In general, any file that is automatically generated by compiler or build tools should NOT be committed into source control. This includes object files, executables, generated resource files, symbols, etc. Committing those files does not serve any useful purpose. Also, sometimes there are configuration files which look like can be committed, but really should not if they only contain local user specific info - for Visual Studio there are *.user files.
By that logic, solution output folder should be always put into ignore list.
I want to version my visual studio 2010 debug builds. I'm going to use git. Right now all the project files are in 'project' and the output binaries are put by visual studio in the directory 'project\debug'. I've read a few questions on here that have ignore lists for Visual Studio but most of them have an ignore list that ignores the binary files, like the obj exe idb pdb ilk etc.
If I want to be able to debug my exe in the future what files do I need to keep? Is there any reason to keep the obj files? Does VS use them at all during debugging or tracing a crash? I thought I should keep at least the the pdb files and the exe. So that would be project.exe, project.pdb and vc100.pdb. But what about vc100.idb, project.ilk, project.res... etc. Is there an ignore list that will ignore everything that isn't needed to keep binary builds but keep everything that is?
I want to make sure if a user sends me a crash dump or reports a problem at some point in the future that I can go back to the version that was being used and be able to debug it. I had also hoped to make the binaries and debug files available in a remote repo so that anyone else could as well. Thanks!
Don't keep binaries in version control. Instead, build from source.
Since the binaries are built from source, and you have the source versioned already, just re-build the particular version as-needed. It will both keep your version control system lean and fast, as well as not cause merge headaches (which binaries are notorious for).
So, the answer is don't keep any binaries in version control.
If you feel you really must keep them, however, then just zip them up and store them like normal files using the tag of the build they came from.
I'm going to keep project.exe and project.pdb in the branch. The other files like *.obj, *.ilk, and *.sdf are not needed. Neither are the vc100.* files. I made my decision after speaking to a number of people in person and reviewing this:
File Types Created for Visual C++ Projects
and this:
Which Visual C++ file types should be committed to version control?
Although that SO question/answer does not answer my question it gave me a lot of good information. I also looked through my project.pdb for all the file references to confirm which files in my project that I needed to keep around. I used this command from the debugging tools for windows:
srcsrv\srctool -r project.pdb
I've written a VS addin which intercepts Visual Studio's build command and uses another build system to do a build. I've got my build showing errors in the right format so that you can click on them in VS but the one step remaining for completely seamless integration is to prevent VS's "run" or "debug" commands from whining the it doesn't think the project is built (when of course it is) does anyone know how I can trick VS into thinking the project is built?
Shortly, MSBuild / Visual Studio checks what is output of defined targets in configuration of particular project. Next it compares timestamp of file(s) specified as target output with timestamps of all files specified as input for that particular target. If input is more up-to-date than output, then it requests to regenerate output (re-compile source code or re-link object files, etc.)
How I can trick VS into thinking the project is built?
Update timestamp of input files, namely source files (.cpp, .cs) or binary files like .obj used as input for linker and other files that are of your interest.
Sometimes I do it manually issuing the following command using touch utility from GnuWIn32
touch myfile.obj
Visual Studio uses the date/time stamp of the source files. If the source file is more up-to-date then the compiled binary located in bin\debug or bin\release, Visual Studio will rebuild the solution.
Sometimes, the rebuild process can fail, the quick solution is to delete the intermediate debug files *.pdb within the solution's bin\debug or bin\release folder. Then issue a build on the solution.
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.
I have a (C++) project that I originally developed under Linux using make to build it. I would like to also have it run in Windows and am using Visual Studio 2005 to build it. The problem I'm running into is that Visual Studio places all objects into the same output directory. This doesn't work for me because I have source files with the same name in different sub-directories. This means that the last object (with the common name) overwrites all previous ones and thus I get link errors for the "missing" code.
Setting the output directory (even using the Visual Studio variables like $(InputDir)) at the project level doesn't work because Visual Studio passes all of the source files to cl.exe at once (i.e. $(InputDir) is evaluated once rather than for each input file). It appears that this problem can be solved by manually setting the output directory for each file (at a minimum, for the affected files), but this is less than optimal and error-prone.
Is there a better way to solve this problem? I would even appreciate it even if someone is able to suggest a way to get Visual Studio to compile files one-at-a-time so that setting the output directory at the project level would have the desired effect.
You might consider using different project for each directory or so. Otherwise, using the exactly same filename within a certain project might seem a bit strange. (Sort of a hierarchy within the project structure; something I've never seen before anyway.)