On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Tom Browder <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, I was wrong--it's working as advertised. And the standard tests > have different results with empty flags (the current case) versus > using the $CMAKE_C_FLAGS as in my test case. See the differences in > the two configure logs attached. Not nearly as many differences as I would've expected, but the few changes do look right. Very reassuring actually. It means we can simplify our macros and add a few more tests now. > I can't yet get my head around how CMake does such a generic > compile check and I'm not sure I want to. It's important to realize that there are different types of tests. There are tests whether a symbol is declared in a header, whether it exists in a library as a symbol, whether it actually .. links, whether it actually .. runs, all different tests. Some tests call for a certain type of specific check while others are more of an integration test answering "can I actually use this thing." > I will try it on my system. I notice they have a cmake plugin. Their extensive available plugins and use by projects similar in complexity and size to BRL-CAD were aspects that faired better than Buildbot. > <config-cmake-required-flags-OFF.log> > <config-cmake-required-flags-ON.log> They do indicate more tests are needed. with -std=, knowing a symbol exists isn't sufficient. We also have to check the header. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
