View Full Version : MSVS include file bug...again.

10-17-2006, 06:50 AM
Well it seems the MSVS bug of failing to recompile headers after changes have been made is not isolated to pre-compiled headers.

Just today I was setting some u,v coords in a constructor for a structure in a header file and was seeing no changes when I pressed F5 or CTRL F5. It was not until a complete rebuild of the solution or project that my code changes actually took effect.

Any reason why headers might do this besides it just being a bug? I don't think I've encountered this in any other compiler to date.

10-17-2006, 10:05 AM
It might be a bug.

It might be a "hole" in the list of dependencies between the source file and the included file.
Eg. a.h includes b.h which itself includes c.h.
If b.h is missing from the project, it might miss what needs to be done when c.h changes.

Are all the application header files part of the project?

Do you have header files with the same name in different directories?

Hard to say really, I do "rebuild all" every so often anyway ;)

10-17-2006, 01:31 PM
It's a definite bug after doing some research through the 27,100 some bugs that have been reported and confirmed with MSVS.

SP1 is supposed to fix it, however, I won't d/l it until it's an official SP1.

10-17-2006, 01:34 PM
That seems like a lot of bugs to me.
Like way more bugs than there are features in the program itself.

Does any of it work at all?

10-17-2006, 11:53 PM
Surprisingly yes it does. But the quality issues have really hurt Microsoft's foray into compilers and IDEs. A great many developers are not happy with the product or the fact it was shipped with the 'good enough to ship' and 'we will fix it later' mentality.

I've read several blogs of those who worked on the MSVS project and they, too, are just as unhappy with the suits that forced their product out the door long before it was ready.

10-18-2006, 04:12 AM
Well that goes with the fact that big companys think more of the money than the comsumer they sell their product to. If they took time to 100% debug all their IDE applications anf fully check it all, then nobody would complain.

But it goes into the amount of time MS gave their developers to finsih or at least finalize the apps. MSVC++ 6.0 is a prime example. Of course, since the standard in 1998, any code written on that compiler IDE is going to be riddled with bugs and compiler warnings.

It still suprisies me the amont of people on here who claim it is an excelent application. It is in ome respects and can get the job done, but there are much better ones out there, if you are going to pay the asking price, of as Bubba and Salem pointed out, of a slightly bugged franchise

10-18-2006, 05:47 AM
> or the fact it was shipped with the 'good enough to ship' and 'we will fix it later' mentality.
Yeah - I rarely get anything from Microsoft until SP2 or SP3 of whatever it is has been released, then it's about stable enough for use.

The first release is just extended Beta testing.