Am Dienstag, 9. November 2010 schrieb David Cole: > First, I would like to make sure we get the ProcessorCount module > reasonably correct on all the platforms that the CMake community cares > about.
When we could use SystemInformation, why duplicate this? I don't think this module should go into any official version if we can get the information from SystemInformation. But it's good for testing anyway. > Then, secondly, I think the SystemInformation output should be > explainable or self-consistent, before we decide which numbers to > compare between the two different methods. Yes, absolutely agreed. This includes that for every platform there should be at least one multicore machine in the test builds to be actually able to see if things work out. > Thirdly, it would be a good idea to do the comparison and see if there > are differences on the dashboard machines. QNX will not work as the SystemInformation stuff there is totally broken. It tries to read /proc/cpuinfo which is simply not there. I posted a patch to this in bug 11329 which needs to be merged for this to work. > Fourthly, (lastly?), once they are consistent everywhere we care > about, maybe we should consider simply building SystemInformation into > a CMake built-in command, so that we can access the information > without doing an execute_process from the ProcessorCount module... I second that. Eike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list cmake-developers@cmake.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
