TMS320F28P650DK: _multi project deletes .sysconfig generated files.

Hi Federico,
Looking into it, will get back to you.
Regards,
Lakshya 

Hi Federico ,
When you mentioned that the “.syscfg file has been excluded from the project”, did you mean that you right-clicked on the SysConfig file and selected “Exclude from Build”?



If yes, this would prevent SysConfig from generating the output files
II would like to better understand your intention behind excluding the SysConfig file so I can assist you more effectively.

Are you trying to freeze the current configuration and avoid regeneration, or modify the generated SysConfig files manually?

Best Regards,
Lakshya Verma 

You are right, I meant that I right-clicked on the SysConfig file and selected “Exclude from Build .syscfg forcpu1 and cpu2 projects.

As you mention this prevents Sysconfig to run and generate the output files. The .syscfg development has been freeze already for a previous release. The sysconfig output files have been moved to a permanent location, different  than the build folder and, and this location included in the project paths. 

What have also been change in the project is the .syscfg output location to where the definitive files lives. 

This allows us to implement the following workflow. Re include .syscfg to build after a change, regenerate syscgf output, freeze the changes and Exclude from build .syscfg again.

What is happening since moving to a multi core approach is that with the .syscfg excluded from build, when clicking "Build Project(s)" on the _multi project the toolchain cleans and deletes the previously generated files (sysconfig generated source file). 

This doesn't happen if I Buil Project from each core individually.

Hi Federico,
I will try to replicate this and will get back to you.

Hello Verma, Any update on this topic?

Hi Federico,
I did following steps

1) Imported empty dual core project from C2000 SDK
2) Changed the output directory setting in the cpu1 project 



Rebuild the cpu1 project using cpu1 build
I observe the sysconfig files are generated in both the folders 
In original Sysconfig/Generated Files as well as  device/sysconfig   directory


Now if I exclude the sysconfig from build and rebuild the project I see that files from both locations are not there.
It happens in both the cases weather i build using cpu1 or multi.


For cpu2 project, I followed different approach
Sysconfig is enabled, build the cpu2 project resulting in generation of sysconfig files.
Now I manually copy those files and paste them in {Project_Dir}/ directory.


Now weather i build using cpu2 or multi in both the cases files are not erased.
(After pasting the files if I won't exclude sysconfig , it will throw a build error because of redefinition) 

I think you may have done something different.
Can you share exact steps to replicate exact phenomenon faced by you.

Hello Verma, 

You have replicated my approach on your _cpu1 case. And you are seeing the same behavior I am when I build from _multi.

The _multi project Build process would clean the .sysconfig output directory on every run after excluding .syscfg. The question is how can the build process be configured?

I will reformulate the question to what is generating the problem. 

When I click on _multi 'Build Projec' CCS decides if building or cleaning and building both projects. It does it arbitrarily. The image below is the build from the _multi project. See on the image how CCC have decided not to clean the cpu1 project and to clean the cpu2 project before building it.

How can this behavior be configured to only build when I click build project and cleaning when I click clean project?

Hi,
Sorry for late reply.

This is happening in your custom project only or it is also happening in some standard SDK example?

If it is also happening in SDK example, please let me know the version of SDK.
So that i can replicate this too on my end.

You are using CCS20.2, right?

Hello Lakshya, 

It happens on proprietary projects and examples.

We are using SDK v6_00_00_00 on CCS20.2.0

Hi Federico,
Can you share which SDK example is demonstrating such behaviour.

Did you do any changes in the SDK example or it was by default showing this ?

I am asking this because I want to replicate this issue on my system.