Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[TW#25611] eclipse for windows, makefile & eclipse_make.py #2297

Closed
dsptech opened this issue Aug 14, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

[TW#25611] eclipse for windows, makefile & eclipse_make.py #2297

dsptech opened this issue Aug 14, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@dsptech
Copy link

dsptech commented Aug 14, 2018

NOT AN ERROR OR SYSTEM ISSUE

To solve the issue #2170 and other problems as in #17 (invalid paths detection, or not necessary paths found), I added a new makefile target to extract search paths, and compiler settings too, directly from components / esp-idf configurations.
The new target is suitable to be called from the Eclipse built-in setting provider.

I'm dealing now on eclipse_make.py file, because it's output message "running make ..." cause a false include path detection.
Is there a way to suppress that output without changing the pyton code ?
(note: I cannot suppress the standard and error outputs because them are used by the provider).

Regards

@FayeY FayeY changed the title eclipse for windows, makefile & eclipse_make.py [TW#25611] eclipse for windows, makefile & eclipse_make.py Aug 20, 2018
@igrr
Copy link
Member

igrr commented Aug 23, 2018

@dsptech Probably easiest would be to change Python code to either not print the full path, not print this message at all, or replace slashes in the path with something else. Another option might be to print to stderr instead — perhaps this will not confuse Eclipse build output parser?

@dsptech
Copy link
Author

dsptech commented Aug 23, 2018

Hi @igrr ,
I agree, any output to stderr will continue to confuse the parser. Suppressing the message at all is the better way.

My original intention was to reduce the changes in the library due the increasing of the required checks at every update but, as you said, changing the pyton code is the easiest way.
So, I will do it.

Thank you.
Regards.

@dsptech dsptech closed this as completed Sep 4, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants