Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-25 09:15:38
On 07/25/17 11:56, Tim Blechmann via Boost wrote:
>>>>> otoh, developers who like IDEs may have a higher productivity due to
>>>>> debugger integration.
>>>> Sure. At least in windows you can open an executable as a project with
>>>> Visual Studio and debug it flawlessly.
>>> if you drop the exe into the ide, you can debug, but does it run the
>>> executable with specific command line options in a specific working
>>> directory in a specific environment?
>> Yes, that's totally up to you.
> but i suppose that a user has to set this up manually as it is not
> defined in the build definition
>>> and/or does it populate a project
>>> with source files involved
>> No it does not. It treats the binaries as kind of a project file.
>>> and does it create a code model to allow
>>> source navigation as in native msvc project files?
>> Yes, I can see no difference here.
>>> debugging may be possible, but the UX will probably differ ...
>> It does: the solution explorer window is mostly empty. Besides that you
>> see no difference in UI and behaviour.
> ... also what about xcode or clion or qtcreator? or running the
> IDE-integrated static analysis tools on a codebase? or libclang based
> tools that use a json compile database?
On Linux, references to sources are typically stored in debug symbols.
So, as long as you have sources at the same location as when the
executable was built, and the debug symbols include a full path, you
should be able to view the source code. But you don't get the full code
model (with the ability to navigate the project or follow symbols)
unless you also open the project in the IDE because there is no
information about include directories or defined macros. I might be
mistaken, but the situation was similar on Windows AFAIR.