This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

CODECOMPOSER: CCS build overwrites SysConfig files that have been excluded from the build

Part Number: CODECOMPOSER
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: SYSCONFIG

Tool/software:

Using Code Composer Studio 20.1.1.8.

My project is configured to use a manually configured output directory for SysConfig content. When working with the syscfg in CCS, I have chosen to exclude 2 files. A folder named "excluded" is created within my generated content folder and the two excluded files appear there after a clean and build. I then edit the files to exclude a function call, then clean and build. This causes my changes to be reverted, meaning that the excluded file was still overwritten as part of the build process.

  • Hello,

    I then edit the files to exclude a function call, then clean and build. This causes my changes to be reverted, meaning that the excluded file was still overwritten as part of the build process.

    The issue is the "clean". The generated sysconfig files (including the excluded folder) is in the build configuration subfolder - where all generated files are "cleaned" with the exception of the generated makefile. This is expected. An incremental build would only touch the files in the build configuration subfolder as needed.

    I then edit the files to exclude a function call

    Did you intend to have this excluded file that you manually modified to be picked up by the rebuild?

    Thanks

    ki

  • The issue is the "clean". The generated sysconfig files (including the excluded folder) is in the build configuration subfolder - where all generated files are "cleaned" with the exception of the generated makefile. This is expected. An incremental build would only touch the files in the build configuration subfolder as needed.

    I currently have to perform a clean. There is some other underlying issue in CCS that causes a linker error if a clean is not performed when changes are made to a file. Although you've said this is expected of sysconfig files, it is not my expectation. My expectation is that when I tell SysConfig to exclude the file, it never touches it in any way.

    Did you intend to have this excluded file that you manually modified to be picked up by the rebuild?

    I am trying to comment out one function call that is generated by SysConfig. I was under the incorrect impression that I could set the file to exclude, make changes to the file, then build. When I exclude the file, make my changes, then rebuild I get all kinds of linker errors. So, I perform a clean to solve that issue, which then reverts the "excluded" file to the automatically generated SysConfig file. This just continues in a loop like this: Exclude the SysConfig generated file, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts, change the SysConfig generated file, can't build without a clean, perform a clean, file reverts.....

  • I will bring this thread to the SysConfig experts for the recommended course of action here.

  • HI Nathan, 

    the way this was intended to work is that once file is excluded from generation then you would need to copy the file to a different location in your project where it would be included in build. excluded folder is there to allow comparison between what system would generate vs what your changes to file are. Files in excluded folder are not part of the build. 

    Martin

  • ok, that use case makes sense. thank you.