[Lazarus] New compiler options page "Additions and Overrides"

[Martin]

On 08/06/2013 15:28, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
>> Would it be beneficial to users to be able to have debug/release,
>> without having to learn the entire new matrix stuff?
> As I pointed out to Juha:
> The matrix is a nice-to-have.
I love it!
> It only makes life easier for those
> having many build modes.
It also makes it easier with no build mode.

Now I have a very easy way to compile SynEdit with other settings, if I 
compile my SynEdit testcase. I really do love it.

>   I could add an option to hide it. The other
> features can not be substituted.
>
> If debug/release mode is useful without Additions and Overrides:
> These are independent. I would say Debug/Release is another topic.
It is,

Though not 100% It may benefit.

People may not like stepping into  the LCL
     S := MyFunc(Form.Caption);
To get to MyFunc, one must step into GetCaption, if it has debug info....

Strip debug info does not help, since project debug info is needed....

So some people may want LCL debug, others not...

>> [...]
>>>> "optimization level" most likely too.
>>> Some packages fail with some optimizations. For example we have
>>> currently a few workarounds in the LCL to work with some optimizations.
>> usually due to compiler bugs.
>> Users can get the same issue in there own code, yet we allow them to
>> change the opt level. And we also allow them to edit it in the package
>> opts...
> I meant that adding options to all is not enough. You need to add an
> option to all except or only to this and that.

Ok, But again, a simplified page would have:

- Only lpi storage => reduce a huge level
- Only selected options (with description, instead of fpc command line)
- - They could then have an "appy to package" that pops up a list of all 
package in that project, and the user can select.

It would be an intermediate solution

> Note:
> The alternative of having many dedicated buttons and checkboxes is
> having a good tool to understand and edit custom options. We need such
> a tool anyway.

Yes, we need.
Not sure, if it is an 100% alternative.

There are still so many combinations of how to set things. The point of 
the intermediate page is to reduce them.

> There are many ways of implementing middle options. Not all of them
> need duplicate controls doing the same thing.
> For example hiding complicated parts, or adding wizards to setup common
> things, or add more labels and hints to explain, or good documentation.
>
Maybe...
Not sure if it is less work...

Also the intermediate page would store the users selection, as it is 
represented there.

If the user ticks the box: no run time checks, that would today (in 
advanced) be -Cr- -Ci- ......

But if FPC adds a new one, -Ca then that is not included in the 
advanced. But in the "the intermediate chekbok was ticked" we can add 
that to it, and the user does not need to worry