[Lazarus] Some syntax changes

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Mattias Gaertner schrieb:

>>> -it requires changes to the options, the gui, the cache.
>> In detail the compiler options could/should be passed directly to the 
>> compiler, not in form of commandline options (string).
> 
> Compiling must work the same with an installed compiler and on
> command line. It's hard to test all combinations, so better not use any
> shortcuts.

Make all compiler options objects (or records with IDs) in the IDE, and 
let the (future) compiler handle them.

But you are right in so far, as the possible speedup may not be worth 
such efforts around commandline parsing in general.


>> Also the time 
>> consuming unit search could be reduced or eliminated, when the IDE and 
>> compiler share the same file/directory cache.
> 
> Yes.
> Although I guess they need different structures. But the
> compiler could load files/directories from the IDE caches. That should speed up a lot, especially under windows.

We only have to agree about a common base class...


>> And not to forget the 
>> handling of compiler messages, that can go immediately into the IDE 
>> messages window.
> 
> They should not go "immediately". They need to be categorized,
> filtered, improved and buffered. And when code changes the output is
> adapted.

They can be intercepted in the Message() subroutine(s). This part 
(verbose.pas...) deserves refactoring anyhow, in a threaded compiler. 
Then every unit-parser thread must maintain its own message queue, else 
the resulting log would be garbled. But see below...


>> Do you already have more concrete ideas, what in detail should be 
>> encapsulated, WRT later IDE integration of the compiler?
> 
> I don't have concrete ideas yet.
> I have a long list of goals, including translation,
> multithreading and different compilers.

I'm not sure whether parser threads and parallel compilation really will 
speed up the compiler. But a compiler in a background thread would be 
nice for the IDE.

DoDi