I would like to change the output file name based on certain criteria that I'm checking with #defines. A little background, I'm doing this because I've decided to use VS2010 in one of my projects to regain intellisense. However, this is causing some other problems with Google Test, and the rest of my team is on VS2008. So, I would like to build a GTEST_VS2010.lib if I'm on VS2010, and GTEST.lib otherwise. I was hoping I could trick the compiler with #pragma comment(linker...
but that doesn't seem to be allowed by MS. Thanks for any help.
VS2010 converts project and solution files, doesn't it? Then you don't have a problem since you can't use the project file with VS2008 anyway. Just change the linker's Output File setting.
Otherwise, you probably should just consider adding another configuration to your solution.
Related
I've just learned the hard way that Visual Studio 2010 and MSBuild extremely lenient when it comes to which vcxproj MSBuild files they will successfully execute - they will overlook missing configurations for subtasks and single files and still successfully execute the build tasks. However this is causing problems for me as it is leading to inconsistent builds across multiple configurations, plus due to the internal inconsistencies in the project files I cannot necessarily edit them in Visual Studio's property view.
So far I have managed to get rid of the most problematic inconsistencies by editing the vcxproj files by hand but this is not really an acceptable strategy given that this particular solution contains over 80 project files.
Is there a tool that can check an MSBuild file for internal consistency and highlight missing configurations along the lines of "your project files says it offers configurations X, Y and Z but the custom build task for file X only supports configurations X and Z"?
Update: The specific problem I am trying to solve right now as opposed to the more general problem of linting the vcxproj file is that of missing conditionals for certain configurations. Unfortunately adding and updating the conditionals seems to require a little more than I can safely accomplish using a find-and-replace tool. Doing it programmatically and correctly would most likely require DOM manipulation and given that I am rather familiar with the internal structure of the build files so far it appears that using a text editor that is able to do basic structural XML validation is the quickest way to accomplish the task at hand.
What I would really like to see however would be a tool that can at least highlight these problems automatically to cut down on the time spent tracking them down.
Configurations are, in general, a VS concept. They are not built-in to MSBuild but achieved using Conditional attributes on property groups. Most likely your project files are valid MSBuild projects, but some of them don't build with default parameters - I'd suggest not to edit them by hand, but either
use a find-and-replace tool to fix them
write a small app that uses Microsoft.Build.Construction API to inspect and fix the project files
There's nothing that would perform this for you, I'm afraid.
This request is currently tracked under https://github.com/dotnet/msbuild/issues/1777
This is not a real answer yet, but as soon as the issue gets resolved to a tangible solution, I'll update it here.
I know I will miss so much of Visual Studio but I am getting really sick of it crashing all the time and being slow, PLUS it is always changing things in my repository that I don't want to change, so I want to just edit with Notepad++. However, now I will have to load up VS just to build things. Is there a way I can build from command line and make a script for it and what not? Will it show the compile errors?
Please don't try to troubleshoot VS for me, I am just asking what is in the question and the rest was just given for context and so nobody was like 'Y U NO RIKE VIZAL STUDIA?'.
build: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\MSBuild.exe "PATH TO YOUR SOLUTION FILE"
help: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\MSBuild.exe /help
What you need is directly calling csc.exe, the C# compiler (which is called by the build system of Visual Studio, anyways). If you ever worked with GCC, it is quite similar except that options are passed Windows-style with / signs instead of -- and there are no object files or additional linking. The MSDN library has documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/78f4aasd.aspx.
Generally, you'd need something like:
csc /target:exe /out:Something.exe *.cs
plus any /reference's you would add in Visual Studio.
If your project is large, it may be uncomfortable to maintain a .bat file to do the compilation, so a build tool like NAnt may be needed, which is quite similar to the Ant used for Java.
This is of course if you want to eliminate Visual Studio entirely. Otherwise, Snowbear's solution of invoking MSBuild.exe will be just as fine.
I have a C# project which includes one exe and 11 library files. The exe references all the libraries, and lib1 may reference lib2, lib3, lib4, etc.
If I make a change to a class in lib1 and built the solution, I assumed that only lib1 and the exe would need to be changed. However, all dll's and the exe are being built if I want to run the solution.
Is there a way that I can stop the dependencies from being built if they have not been changed?
Is the key this phrase? "However, all dll's and the exe are being built if I want to run the solution"
Visual Studio will always try to build everything when you run a single project, even if that project doesn't depend on everything. This choice can be changed, however. Go to Tools|Options|Projects and Solutions|Build and Run and check the box "Only build startup projects and dependencies on Run". Then when you hit F5, VS will only build your startup project and the DLLs it depends on.
I just "fixed" the same problem with my VS project. Visual Studio did always a rebuild, even if didn't change anything. My Solution: One cs-File had a future timestamp (Year 2015, this was my fault). I opened the file, saved it and my problem was solved!!!
I am not sure if there is a way to avoid dependencies from being built. You can find some info here like setting copylocal to false and putting the dlls in a common directory.
Optimizing Visual Studio solution build - where to put DLL files?
We had a similar problem at work. In post-build events we were manually embedding manifests into the outputs in the bin directory. Visual Studio was copying project references from the obj dir (which weren't modified). The timestamp difference triggered unnecessary rebuilds.
If your post-build events modify project outputs then either modify the outputs in the bin and obj dir OR copy the modified outputs in the bin dir on top of those in the obj dir.
You can uncheck the build option for specified projects in your Solution configuration:
(source: microsoft.com)
You can can create your own solution configurations to build specific project configurations...
(source: microsoft.com)
We actually had this problem on my current project, in our scenario even running unit tests (without any code changes) was causing a recompile. Check your build configuration's "Platform".
If you are using "Any CPU" then for some reason it rebuilds all projects regardless of changes. Try using processor specific builds, i.e. x86 or x64 (use the platform which is specific to the machine architecture of your machine). Worked for us for x86 builds.
(source: episerver.com)
Now, after I say this, some propeller-head is going to come along and contradict me, but there is no way to do what you want to do from Visual Studio. There is a way of doing it outside of VS, but first, I have a question:
Why on earth would you want to do this? Maybe you're trying to save CPU cycles, or save compile time, but if you do what you're suggesting you will suddenly find yourself in a marvelous position to shoot yourself in the foot. If you have a library 1 that depends upon library 2, and only library 2 changes, you may think you're OK to only build the changed library, but one of these days you are going to make a change to library 2 that will break library 1, and without a build of library 2 you will not catch it in the compilation. So in my humble opinion, DON'T DO IT.
The reason this won't work in VS2005 and 2008 is because VS uses MSBuild. MSBuild runs against project files, and it will examine the project's references and build all referenced projects first, if their source has changed, before building the target project. You can test this yourself by running MSBuild from the command line against one project that has not changed but with a referenced project that has changed. Example:
msbuild ClassLibrary4.csproj
where ClassLibrary4 has not changed, but it references ClassLibrary5, which has changed. MSBuild will build lib 5 first, before it builds 4, even though you didn't mention 5.
The only way to get around all these failsafes is to use the compiler directly instead of going through MSBuild. Ugly, ugly, but that's it. You will basically be reduced to re-implementing MSBuild in some form in order to do what you want to do.
It isn't worth it.
Check out the following site for more detailed information on when a project is built as well as the differences between build and rebuild.
I had this problem too, and noticed these warning messages when building on Windows 7 x64, VS2008 SP1:
cl : Command line warning D9038 : /ZI is not supported on this platform; enabling /Zi instead
cl : Command line warning D9007 : '/Gm' requires '/Zi'; option ignored
I changed my project properties to:
C/C++ -> General -> Debug Information Format = /Zi
C/C++ -> Code Generation -> Enable Minimal Build = No
After rebuilding I switched them both back and dependencies work fine again. But prior to that no amount of cleaning, rebuilding, or completely deleting the output directory would fix it.
I don't think there's away for you to do it out of the box in VS. You need this add-in
http://workspacewhiz.com/
It's not free but you can evaluate it before you buy.
Yes, exclude the non-changing bits from the solution. I say this with a caveat, as you can compile in a way where a change in build number for the changed lib can cause the non built pieces to break. This should not be the case, as long as you do not break interface, but it is quite common because most devs do not understand interface in the .NET world. It comes from not having to write IDL. :-)
As for X projcts in a solution, NO, you can't stop them from building, as the system sees a dependency has changed.
BTW, you should look at your project and figure out why your UI project (assume it is UI) references the same library as everything else. A good Dependency Model will show the class(es) that should be broken out as data objects or domain objects (I have made an assumption that the common dependency is some sort of data object or domain object, of course, but that is quite common). If the common dependency is not a domain/data object, then I would rethink my architecture in most cases. In general, you should be able to create a path from UI to data without common dependencies other than non-behavioral objects.
Not sure of an awesome way to handle this, but in the past if I had a project or two that kept getting rebuilt, and assuming I wouldn't be working in them, I would turn the build process off for them.
Right click on the sln, select configuration manager and uncheck the check boxes. Not perfect, but works when Visual Studio isn't behaving.
If you continue to experience this problem, it may be due to a missing or out of date calculated dependency (like a header) that is listed in your project, but does not exist.
This happens to me especially common after migrating to a new version (for example: from 2012 to 2013) because VS may have recalculated dependencies in the conversion, or you are migrating to a new location.
A quick check is to double-click every file in offending project from solution explorer. If you discover a file does not exist, that is your problem.
Failing a simple missing file: You may have a more complicated build date relationship between source and target. You can use a utility to find out what front-end test is triggering the build. To get that information you can enable verbose CPS logging. See: Andrew Arnott - Enable C++ and Javascript project system tracing (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vsproject/archive/2009/07/21/enable-c-project-system-logging.aspx). I use the DebugView option. Invaluable tool when you need it.
(this is a C# specific question, but a different post was merged as identical)
I've got a solution containing multiple projects. I'm only changing the code in one of them, but every time I hit Ctrl+Shift+B, Visual Studio rebuilds all of the others.
I want it to build the other projects, so this is good. What's not good is that, normally, it would see that there was nothing to do. I have a wonky dependency somewhere, so this isn't working.
Is there a tool or macro (or switch) that'll explore the dependency tree and tell me which files are missing or out-of-date, so that I can get it to stop?
I know that I can solve this specific case, by (e.g.) touching all of the project files.
Unfortunately, I've often seen this situation when a file is configured to produce an output file (e.g. an IDL file is configured to output a typelibrary, but doesn't contain a 'library' block, so it'll never create a TLB).
This wouldn't be resolved by touching all of the project files, so I'm looking for something more general to add to my personal toolbox that'll easily tell me why a file is being rebuilt, whether it be because it's older than a dependency, or because the project is misconfigured to expect an output file that will never be produced.
In Options / Projects and Solutions / Build and Run turn up the MSBuild project build output verbosity to Detailed. It should give you an idea of why it is rebuilding all the projects.
If I understand you right, you might solve this by touching all your project's files. It may be caused by a source-file having a last-modified-time that's in the future.
Edit:
I know that I can solve this specific case, by (e.g.) touching all of the project files, but I'd like to add something to my personal box of tricks that I can use in the future, in the general case.
I'm confused - what's the 'general case' of this problem?
Not that I've found. If you know that a project is not going to change often, you can tell the Configuration Manager not to build it. (Right-click on the Solution, and select Configuration Management)
As far as I know ctrl + shift + b is by default bound to BuildSolution, so that would be why all your projects are being build. i'm not really sure what else you could use except for rightclicking the project and pressing build :)
You might want to check in Tools>Option>Projects and Solutions and check if your option is set to Only Build startup project and dependencies instead of all the solution.
Or instead of using ctrl+shirt+b you should simply press F6 on the project you want to build :)
You can use shift+F6 to build just the current project.
While not directly answering my question: "is there a tool that'll work this out for me?", I found the specific problem by using SysInternals Process Monitor:
The project was configured with /analyze, which requires Visual Studio Team Edition, but the version on this PC is Visual Studio Professional, which doesn't support it. Unfortunately, there appears to be a bug in Visual Studio, where it thinks that the .pchast file should be created, even though it has no way to do so. I've raised this on Connect.
I think I might write a macro for Visual Studio Professional that, if /analyze is turned on, simply creates an empty .pchast file at the end of the build...
I'm trying to build a small VS 2005 solution I've just checked out of source control, and I'm getting this easy to understand error:
...\AssemblyInfo.cs' could not be
opened ('The system cannot find the
file specified. ') (The file is fairly
obviously missing)
Because this file's automatically generated, I've never paid it much heed before, and in VS 2003 (which I still work with day to day - pity me) it never seems to matter if it's missing.
So 2 questions:
1. How can I get VS 2005 to regenerate the file.
2. Could anyone explain to me in a couple of sentences what the assembly info file is all about, why it's generated, why it's a good idea to have an automatically generated file critical to my solution building etc etc.
Thanks - Andrew.
Edit: OK, I've googling some more, and it's probably significant that this is in an Nunit Test Project.
Update: Deleting the reference in solution explorer an Alex suggested did the trick, and the project now builds, but I'm not entirely happy with that as a solution. If the file is so unimportant, why is it generated in the first place? And if the file does perform a vital task, what am I missing out on by just deleting it?
Also, is it even possible to get it back? Either by getting VS to regenerate it, or by manually hacking one up (possibly using another as a template)?
This file contains assembly-wide settings like assembly version, name, etc. It is automatically generated when you change those settings using properties pages of the project. You should have this file in the project with sort of transparent icon (I think it is in resource folder or something like this by default). Locate it in the project tree and delete it. Visual studio will stop looking for it during build.
PS: assuming the path starts with .. and not ... then this file should be located one folder up from the project in the source control. So you can try looking there.