Re: Build
- From: "cristalink" <cristalink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:03:35 +1300
Don, I am aware of the benefits and keen to have them. I will probably end
up with using #include "bla.c" with that high-tech BUILD tool. Hopefully, I
will be able to copy real or dummy .c files along with SOURCES etc. to my
temp dir and then build in there.
By the way, I'm curious if PREfast will work with #include "bla.c".
"Don Burn" <burn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:egguMAQMGHA.532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well having had customers who like you rejected BUILD, you should throw in
the following questions:
1. Do you really want to spend the cost to debug the problems when
you get the settings wrong? I know you think you have them right, so did
my customers, they then spent a ton of money chasing down problems when it
turned out they didn't have them correct.
2. Do you want to ignore tools like PREfast and SDV that assume the
build environment to run? Last year a customer sent me a driver not using
BUILD, I did a little work on it and converted it to BUILD and ran
PREfast. Turns out one of the bugs that PREfast found they had spent
almost 2 man-years chasing, and had lost a major client because of the
bug!
3. Do you sell you code to major companies? I know a number of firms
that take the approach of do not bother with the device or driver if it
does not follow the Microsoft blessed environement. This is in part
because they have dealt with issues 1 and 2.
You can invert these to hidden benefits, of you know the driver is built
correctly, you can use all the Microsoft supplied tools, and you can sell
to major firms that insist on a known environement.
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
"cristalink" <cristalink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e24lSzPMGHA.3064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The real question is, whether BUILD will provide us with the benefits
which at least cover the efforts spent on adapting BUILD for our needs.
if BUILD is good for MS- why it does not work for me
The answer is obvious - it's an outdated badly designed tool that can't
even put temporary files into a custom location, let alone allow sources
from anywhere but "the current and parent directory". One can say - put
all the sources in the same directory. Good point, let's take it a bit
further - let's make the folders obsolete. All files should go into C:\.
One of the many advantages is that NTFS.SYS will become simpler.
Who said BUILD is "good" for Microsoft? They may be still using it for
various reasons, but that doesn't mean it does any good for them. I
wonder why they don't use BUILD for their .NET stuff. It works for
NTFS.SYS - why does it not work for a primitive "hello, world" in VB.NET?
:)
"Pavel A." <pavel_a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uxyWSLPMGHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"cristalink" <cristalink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uChNH0NMGHA.1532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's a shame BUILD is in the same condition it was five years ago.
Perhaps a question is due here: if BUILD is good for MS- why it does not
work for me?
Is my driver more complex than NT kernel or ntfs.sys ?
Regards,
--PA
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: how to track irp??
- Next by Date: Getting IDE/PCI info about PhysicalDrive0?
- Previous by thread: Re: Build
- Next by thread: Re: Build
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
