Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> What I'd like to see is a distinction of feature support from platform >> support. In my case, I care about writing some features in cmake, but I >> don't care about watcom, GCC 3.3.1 etc. What I'd like to do is make sure >> my feature works on some 'reference platforms', which could be anything >> 'non- ancient', and fixing it on the ancient ones would become >> not-my-problem. > > I find this all natural (but it's not my decision).
I'm not sure what this statement means. > On the other hand we > have some other features (like e.g. the source_group stuff) that depend on > generators and compilers. > > One thing that I would only call "fallout" of such a thing, but that I > would love to see is a way to get the compiler version for the currently > active (C, C++, Fortran, ASM) compilers. That would probably help with > your use case, too, when you can determine the version and show a sensible > error message if the compiler version is too old. > > Eike Yes, while a way to get the cross-compiler compiler version would be a step in the right direction, it might not help in the case of features written in C++, as you have no opportunity to run platform checks to enable features at all. Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
