No binary or hex file output

RAltm · ‎2021-03-09

Hello,

I've a strange problem with CubeIDE 1.6.0, there's no binary or hex file output even if the corresponding outputs are activated under MCU post build outputs. Any ideas what might be the issue there?

Regards

RAltm · ‎2021-04-07

It seems that ST didn't take notice of it... at least they didn't respond here.

Peter BENSCH · ‎2021-04-07

I just compiled a small project with CubeIDE 1.6.1... no problem creating bin and/or hex files.

Any way to recreate this issue?

Regards

/Peter

In order to give better visibility on the answered topics, please click on Accept as Solution on the reply which solved your issue or answered your question.

DShan.1 · ‎2021-04-07

As described above, the problem occurs when using the internal builder. The problem does not occur when using the external builder.

Peter BENSCH · ‎2021-04-07

Uh, OK, after switching to Internal Builder I also don't get the HEX/BIN/SREC files anymore.

Very interesting, needs to be checked.

In order to give better visibility on the answered topics, please click on Accept as Solution on the reply which solved your issue or answered your question.

DavidAlfa · ‎2021-04-07

Working ok here.

mattias norlander · ‎2021-04-08

External builder is the recommended way in CubeIDE as in many other Eclipse/CDT based tools. We chose External rather than Internal because it was more actively support by the Eclipse community and it makes sense to move with the OSS community. So, please consider Internal Builder untested by us, so things like hex/bin/srec generation may not be supported at all.

Thanks @Cartu38 OpenDev for creative work-arounds! 😉

DShan.1 · ‎2021-04-08

Does there exist somewhere a list of features of CubeIDE that are untested and/or unsupported?

This is a feature that worked properly on STM's previous IDE (Atollic). It's reasonable for customers moving projects from Atollic to CubeIDE to expect features that worked before to continue to work.

Cartu38 OpenDev · ‎2021-04-08

Sounds like you're asking something not realistic I guess.

Eclipse offer is so wide .... Pro and cons. of open source. I cannot imagine myself STM is validating back all Eclipse ecosystem ... Best case they can contribute to to improve it and validate their own addons but more ???

DShan.1 · ‎2021-04-08

Nobody suggested that they "validate back all Eclipse ecosystem." But validating the software they provide to their customers seems like a good idea. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Cartu38 OpenDev · ‎2021-04-08

Discussion start here is internal vs. external builders. Both are Eclipse & CDT open source community proposal. STM if STM32CubeIDE is promoting external builder as default. I guess such external builder usage if STM context is validated. Cannot complain to get internal one not validated.

For sure you're not old fashioned I am like you are expecting STM is doing validation.

I'm not aware but let's consider STM is not validating internal builder because they do not recommend it as shared by @mattias norlander . Sounds ok to me. Then we may ask STM to disable then such internal builder feature being safe so ... but I'm pretty sure lot of them then are going to complain STM is locking at a point Eclipse rich ecosystem which may be useful at a time ... In other word if closed ecosystem some will complain about but if open one some are going to complain still ...