I have many image/video files should be included as resource. Their size overs 30MB. So it takes to much time when I compile them. This slows down my development speed.
So I'm finding a way to compile those some resource files conditionally. Like #ifdef directive in source code.
It's good if it can be specified in source code file. Any recommended method?
First, in your Target, move the "Copy Bundle Resources" step after the Compile and Link steps. I have never quite figured out why Apple wants to copy the resources first, but it's a major slow-down on development because you wind up copying resources even when there are compile errors.
Next, to actually run the program with only certain resources, you'll need to make two targets. In your lightweight target, just don't copy the resources you don't want. Unfortunately there's no easy way to keep the two targets in sync if you make changes to the build, but using xcconfig files will generally keep it pretty easy.
Related
I have a Keil STM32 project for a STM32L0. I sometimes (more often than I want) have to change the include paths or global defines. This will trigger a complete recompile for all code because it needs to ‘check’ for changed behaviour because of these changes. The problem is: I didn’t necessarily change relevant parameters for the HAL and as such it isn’t needed (as far as I understand) that these files are completely recompiled. This recompilation takes up quite a bit of time because I included all the HAL drivers for my STM32L0.
Would a good course of action be to create a separate project which compiles the HAL as a single library and include that in my main project? (This would of course be done for every microcontroller separately as they have different HALs).
ps. the question is not necessarily only useful for this specific example but the example gives some scope to the question.
pps. for people who aren't familiar with the STM32 HAL. It is the standardized interface with which the program interfaces with the underlying hardware. It is supplied in .c and .h files instead of the precompiled form of the STD/STL.
update
Here is an example of the defines that need to be managed in my example project:
STM32L072xx,USE_B_BOARD,USE_HAL_DRIVER, REGION_EU868,DEBUG,TRACE
Only STM32L072xx, and DEBUG are useful for configuring the HAL library and thus there shouldn't be a need for me to recompile the HAL when I change TRACE from defined to undefined. Therefore it seems to me that the HAL could be managed separately.
edit
Seeing as a close vote has been cast: I've read the don't ask section and my question seeks to constructively add to the knowledge of building STM32 programs and find a best practise on how to more effectively use the HAL libraries. I haven't found any questions on SO about building the HAL as a static library and therefore this question at least qualifies as unique. This question is also meant to invite a rich answer which elaborates on the pros/cons of building the HAL as a separate static library.
The answer here is.. it depends. As already pointed out in the comments, it depends on how you're planning to manage your projects. To answer your question in an unbiased way:
Option #1 - having HAL sources directly in your project means rebuilding HAL every time anything in its (and underlying) headers changes, which you've already noticed. Downside of it is longer build times. Upside - you are sure that what you build is what you get.
Option #2 - having HAL as a precompiled static library. Upside - shorter build times, downside - you can no longer be absolutely certain that the HAL library you include actually works as you want it to. In particular, you'd need to make sure in some way that all the #defines are exactly the same as when the library has been built. This includes project-wide definitions (DEBUG, STM32L072xx etc.), as well as anything in HAL config files (stm32l0xx_hal_conf.h).
Seeing how you're a Keil user - maybe it's just a matter of enabling multi-core build? See this link: http://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/armcc/armcc_chr1359124201769.htm. HAL library isn't so large that build times should be a concern when it comes to rebuilding its source files.
If I was to express my opinion and experience - personally I wouldn't do it, as it may lead to lower reliability or side effects that will be very hard to diagnose and will only get worse as you add more source files and more libraries like this. Not to mention adding more people to work on the project and explaining to them how they "need to remember to rebuild X library when they change given set of header files or project-wide definitions".
In fact, we've ran into the same dilemma for the code base I work on - it spans over 10k source and header files in total, some of which are configuration-specific and many of which are shared. It's highly modular which allows us to quickly create something new (both hardware- and software-wise) just by configuring existing code, mainly through a set of header files. However because this configuration is done through headers, making a change in them usually means rebuilding a large portion of the project. Even though build times get annoying sometimes, we opted against making static libraries for the reasons mentioned above. To me personally it's better to prioritize reliability, as in "I know what I build".
If I was to give any general tips that help to avoid rebuilds as your project gets large:
Avoid global headers holding all configuration. It's usually tempting to shove all configuration in one place, create pretty comments and sections for each software module in this one file. It's easier to manage this way (until this file becomes too big), but because this file is so common, it means that any change made to it will cause a full rebuild. Split such files to separate headers corresponding to each module in your project.
Include header files only where you need them. I sometimes see an approach where there are header files created that only "bundle" other header files and such header file is later included. In this case, making a change to any of those "smaller" headers will have an effect of having to recompile all source files including the larger file. If such file didn't exist, then only sources explicitly including that one small header would have to be recompiled. Obviously there's a line to be drawn here - including too "low level" headers may not be the greatest idea either, e.g. they may not be meant to be included as being internal library files which may change any time.
Prioritize including headers in source files over header files. If you have a pair of your own *.c (*.cpp) and *.h files - let's say temp_logger.c/.h and you need ADC - then unless you really need some ADC definition in your header (which you likely won't), then include the ADC header file in your temp_logger.c file. Later on, all files making use of the temp_logger functions won't have to be re-compiled in case HAL gets rebuilt again.
My opinion is yes, build the HAL into a library. The benefit of faster build time outweighs the risk of the library getting out of date. After some point early in the project it's unusual for me to change something that would affect the HAL. But the faster build time pays off many times.
I create a multi-project workspace with one project for the HAL library, another project for the bootloader, and a third project for the application. When I'm developing, I only rebuild the application project. When I make a release build, I select Project->Batch Build and rebuild all three projects. This way the release builds always use all the latest code and build settings.
Also, on the Options for Target dialog, Output tab, unchecking Browse Information will greatly reduce the build time.
I have an iPad app that can come in several different releasable flavors, and I'm trying to decide how to best make these alternate releases. They have only a few differences source-code wise, and primarily differ in resource data files (xml and a very large amount of binary files).
1) Should I duplicate the project and branch the handful of source files and include the appropriate resources separately for each? This seems more of a maintenance hassle as I add files to the project and do other basic things other than edit shared files.
2) Or should I use #defines to build the appropriate flavor I want at any time, then ifdef out entire files accordingly? This seems simpler but my suspicion is that I won't be able to find an easy way to exclude/include resource files, and that would be a deal breaker.
Any suggestions on how to deal with the resource issue in option 2, or if there is an alternate approach altogether that is better?
What about creating separate targets within a single XCode project?
Make each target include the files that are appropriate for that app; no need for ifdefs that way.
As I create more applications, my /code/shared/* increases.
this creates a problem: zipping and sending a project is no longer trivial. it looks like my options are:
in Xcode set shared files to use absolute path. Then every time I zip and send, I must also zip and send /code/shared/* and give instructions, and hope the recipient doesn't have anything already at that location.
this is really not practical; it makes the zip file too big
maintain a separate copy of my library files for each project
this is not really acceptable as a modification/improvements would have to be implemented everywhere separately. this makes maintenance unreasonably cumbersome.
some utility to go through every file in the Xcode project, figure out the lowest common folder, and create a zipped file structure that only contains the necessary files, but in their correct relative folder locations, so that the code will still build
(3) is what I'm looking for, but I have a feeling it doesn't as yet exist.
Anyone?
You should rethink your current process. The workflow you're describing in (3) is not normal. This all sounds very complicated and all basically handled with relative ease if you were using source control. (3) just doesn't exist and likely never will.
A properly configured SCM will allow you to manage multiple versions of multiple libraries (packages) and allow you to share projects (in branches) without ever requiring zipping up anything.
I'm new to XCode and I find the file management a huge pain. In most IDEs, you can simply have the project source tree reference a directory structure on disk. This makes it easy to add new files to your project - you simply put them on disk, and they will get compiled automatically.
With XCode, it appears I have to both create the file and separately add it to the project (or be forced to manipulate the filesystem through the UI). But this means that sharing the .xcodeproj through source control is fraught with problems - often, we'll get merge conflicts on the xcodeproj file - and when we don't, we often get linker errors, because during the merge some of the files that were listed in the project get excised. So I have to go and re-add them to the project file until I can get it to compile, and then re-check in the project file.
I'm sure I must be missing something here. I tried using 'reference folders' but the code in them doesn't seem to get compiled. It seems insane to build an IDE that forces everyone to modify a single shared file whenever adding or removing files to a project.
Other answers notwithstanding, this is absolutely a departure from other IDEs, and a major nuisance. There's no good solution I know of.
The one trick I use a lot to make it a little more bearable — especially with resource directories with lots of files in them — is:
select a directory in the project tree,
hit the delete key,
choose "Remove References Only", then
drag the directory into the project to re-add it.
This clobbers any manual reordering of files, but it does at least make syncing an O(1) operation, instead of being O(n) in the number of files changed.
I'm intrigued which IDEs you're using that automatically compile everything in a directory, as no IDE I've ever used does that (at least for C++). I think it's pretty standard to have a project file containing a list of all the files. Often you may want to only include certain files for different targets, have per-file compiler settings, etc.
Anyway, given that that's how it does work, you really shouldn't have too many problems from merge conflicts. The best advice would be commit early and often so that you don't get out of step with other people's changes. Merely adding files to the project shouldn't result in a conflict unless they happen to be added at exactly the same point in the project tree. We've been using Xcode in our team for years and we very rarely get conflicts: only if someone has restructured the project.
Fortunately, because the Xcode file format is text, it's generally quite easy to resolve conflicts when they occur, unlike the Bad Old Days of Codewarrior with it's binary format.
I am trying to set up Xcode for a project which contains multiple executables and static libraries. I have created multiple targets and set up the linking and dependencies, and initially everything works great. The catch...
This is an existing project which already has Visual Studio and Makefile builds. Those builds put the libraries in a lib/Debug directory and the executables in bin/Debug. So in Xcode I changed the Build Products Path to "lib" and "bin" respectively (so we can use one set of documentation for all of the platforms). This puts the compiled targets in the right place, but completely breaks both the linking (Library not found) and the dependencies.
I can fix the linking by adding $(SRCROOT)/lib/Debug to the Library Search Paths for each executable (but it feels like Xcode should be able to figure this out on its own, which makes me think I'm doing something wrong).
But — I can't figure out how to get the dependencies working again. If I change a library source file, the library will rebuild but not the dependent executables. If I force a build of the executable Xcode returns success without doing anything; it thinks the target is up to date. If I clean the target and then rebuild it works.
So, any ideas here? Is Xcode being fundamentally stupid in this regard, or is it me (I'm leaning toward the latter)?
Update: I've posted a sample project to demonstrate the issue at http://share.industriousone.com/XcodeDepsIssue.zip. Build it once, then modify MyStaticLib.c and build it again. The executable will not relink (and it should). Many thanks for any help on this one.
starkos, thanks for publishing your conclusion. It validated my experience as well. This situation really screwed me, so it was nice to know I wasn't just missing something.
I did however discover a workaround that avoids creating multiple projects or keeping the library and its dependent in the same directory. It is a hack, but it does work here.
I know it's a bit late but better than never.
For the dependency library, add a "Copy Files Build Phase", with Absolute Path as the destination, and the path text field should be the directory where the DEPENDENT target lives. Then click on Products, find the dependency library (will end with .a), and drag it into the "Copy Files Build Phase." If you now build, this will put the library into its own directory like before and THEN also copy it into the dependent's target directory.
For the dependent, you can now remove the dependency's output directory from the Library Search Paths. This will cause it to find the library copy. If you do this, the dependent will indeed be relinked each time the dependency .a is relinked.
The negatives are, of course, the extra time for the copy, and the necessity to specify (in the Copy phase) the target directory for each dependent of your library. Beats the hell out of the alternatives though....
Xcode doesn't automatically set up dependencies based on use of build products; you have to set up explicit target dependencies yourself.
Project > Edit Target Settings, General tab, + button, add any targets that are prerequisites to building the selected target. That should get you going again.
I've researched this some more and the answer is no, Xcode 3.x doesn't track dependencies between targets that live in different directories. You can work around it by giving each library its own project, and adding each of those to a master project. Or you can keep all of your targets in one directory. Pick your poison.
Here is my solution for this weird behavior in xcode 4.3.1. You have to add build pre-action in scheme:
rm -f ${BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR}/${EXECUTABLE_PATH}
and choose which build settings to use for this script. Each time before build, target executable will be removed and rebuild completely. It helped for me, and i hope it helps you.
NOTE: Have tried to put this script in project build phase, and result was negative - debugger could not connect process to start debugging.
Good luck!
OK, it would help to have the text of the Linking... build line that's failing. But a couple of things:
1) You shouldn't be linking to anything in $(SRCROOT). That's your project sources. The two places to find things to link are $(SYMROOT) (the Build Products directory) or $(DSTROOT) (the Installed Products directory).
One thing you could do is to have a common Build Directory, then use 'xcodebuild install' action to install the products in the Installation Directory. The other is to use a Copy Files build phase to copy them after building, so you can link against them in $(SYMROOT) but still have them where your Windows compatriots expect them.
THere is probably a way to set up the per-target build products directories correctly, but I'd really have to see the project itself to figure it out.