Menu

RFC: Move many FORTE CMake options into the advanced section

2014-04-27
2014-05-05
  • Zoitl Alois

    Zoitl Alois - 2014-04-27

    Cmake gave us the great power to flexibly configure many options and features of FORTE. This allows to fine tune FORTE for your specific target, mainly reducing flash and RAM footprint. However a typical FORTE user will not need most of them. Especially when starting with FORTE these options may be overwhelming. Therefore I suggest to move the following options into the advanced section:

    • FORTE_BUILDSUPPORT_DIRECTORY
    • FORTE_BUILD_TYPE
    • FORTE_BootfileLocation
    • FORTE_CommunicationInterruptQueueSize
    • FORTE_EXCLUDE_FBS
    • FORTE_EventChainEventListSize
    • FORTE_EventChainExternalEventListSize
    • FORTE_IPLayerRecvBufferSize
    • FORTE_LINKED_STRINGDICT
    • FORTE_MGMCOMMANDPROTOCOL
    • FORTE_MODIFY_SOURCES_ON_MISSING_GENERATED_INCLUDES
    • FORTE_STRINGDICTFIXEDMEMORY
    • FORTE_STRINGDICTINITIALMAXNROFSTRINGS
    • FORTE_STRINGDICTINITIALSTRINGBUFSIZE
    • FORTE_SUPPORT_ARRAYS
    • FORTE_SUPPORT_BOOT_FILE
    • FORTE_SUPPORT_CUSTOM_SERIALIZABLE_DATATYPES
    • FORTE_SUPPORT_MONITORING
    • FORTE_TEST_CODE_COVERAGE_ANALYSIS
    • FORTE_TRACE_EVENTS
    • FORTE_TicksPerSecond
    • FORTE_TimeBaseUnitsPerSecond
    • FORTE_UNICODE_SUPPORT
    • FORTE_USE_64BIT_DATATYPES
    • FORTE_USE_LREAL_DATATYPE
    • FORTE_USE_REAL_DATATYPE
    • FORTE_USE_WSTRING_DATATYPE
    • GCOV_PATH
    • GENHTML_PATH
    • LCOV_PATH

    What do you think? Are these to much options or to little? Are the default values for these options already the ones most suitable for novice users?

    Cheers,
    Alois

     
  • Martin Melik-Merkumians

    I fully agree that these options should be moved to the advanced section.

    Kind regards,
    Martin

     
  • Gerhard Ebenhofer

    I also agree to move this options into the advanced section.

     
  • Monika Wenger

    Monika Wenger - 2014-04-28

    I agree as well ... maybe the monitoring option would be nice to stay in the default section

     
    • Zoitl Alois

      Zoitl Alois - 2014-04-28

      As monitoring is enabled per default since the last version do you think it should be in the default section?

      I would now deactivate monitoring only for space sensitive devices.

       
  • Thomas Strasser

    Thomas Strasser - 2014-04-28

    In my point of view it should be moved also to the advanced section. It is what I would expect as user of 4DIAC. Moreove, in my point of view it doesn't make sense to have different configurations for 4DIAC-IDE (there is no support from the IDE to deactive the monitoring service and to hide it in the menu) and FORTE (configuration via cmake).

     

    Last edit: Thomas Strasser 2014-04-28
  • Thomas Strasser

    Thomas Strasser - 2014-04-28

    I also find it very useful to move the above mentioned options into the advanced section. A new and not so well informed 4DIAC user may get confused with too many options setting up the FORTE build environment.

     
  • Martin Melik-Merkumians

    In my opinion monitoring should also go to advanced settings. A user which needs the performance/space gains of deactivating the monitoring support is, in my opinion, an advanced user

     
  • Monika Wenger

    Monika Wenger - 2014-04-29

    ok I am convinced to move Monitoring into the advanced section

     
  • Zoitl Alois

    Zoitl Alois - 2014-05-03

    Thanks for the feedback. Based on it I create the [issues:#852] to capture the result of the discussion.

     

    Related

    Issues: #852

  • Zoitl Alois

    Zoitl Alois - 2014-05-04

    To further simplify FORTE configuration I thought it is a good idea to make architecture selection possible with a combo box. Today I played a little with CMake the results can be found under [issues:#853]. I hope you like it as well.

     

    Related

    Issues: #853

  • Gerhard Ebenhofer

    I like the combo box for the architecture (although it took me a while why a internal module had some linker problems ;-) ).

    May I take this for an additional RFC regarding the options - what about disabling the FORTE_TRACE_EVENTS by default?

     

    Last edit: Gerhard Ebenhofer 2014-05-05
    • Zoitl Alois

      Zoitl Alois - 2014-05-05

      with cset [forte:6ae019] the linking issues in all the FORTE CMakeFiles should now be resolved.

       

      Related

      Commit: [6ae019]

  • Thomas Strasser

    Thomas Strasser - 2014-05-05

    The combo-box is a very good idea. Yes, also the FORTE_TRACE_EVENTS shoule be deactivated by default in my point of view.

     
  • Zoitl Alois

    Zoitl Alois - 2014-05-05

    I like the combo box for the architecture (although it took me a while why a internal module had some linker problems ;-) ).

    Thanks. Oopsi I think I will have to check some of the modules. As the checking for architectures has changed.

    I was not sure about the FORTE_TRACE_EVENTS but I'm happy to deactivate it per default. Should we move this also into the advanced section?

     
  • Thomas Strasser

    Thomas Strasser - 2014-05-05

    I would be in favour to move it to the advanced section!