On Sunday 18 December 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Friday 16 December 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 December 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > >> Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > >> >> And, again a question regarding wording, currently the warnings > > >> >> generated by automoc say "Better <do this and that> for a more > > >> >> robust build." I'd like to have a better way to express it. > > >> >> "Use <this and that> for STRICT mode compatibility." ? > > >> >> or "for qmake compatibility" ? > > >> >> Better ideas ? > > >> > > > >> > I pushed it as branch AutomocFineTuning to stage. > > >> > The variable is now CMAKE_AUTOMOC_RELAXED_MODE . > > >> > > > >> > If that's fine with everybody, I'll merge it into next in the next > > >> > days. This should still go into 2.8.7. > > >> > > >> I applied the attached patch and kdelibs build fails using the > > >> AutomocFineTuning branch (as expected). > > > > > > You mean setting CMAKE_AUTOMOC_RELAXED_MODE to TRUE, right ? > > > Yes, that's expected. > > > > I mean not setting it at all and letting it take its default value of > > True. > > Do you mean the relaxed mode should be default ? > Why ? In strict mode it behaves exactly as documented. > For KDE it shouldn't be a problemit's just that one variable which has to > be set. > > > >> Uncommenting the line to invert the relaxed mode makes it build again. > > >> I'm fine with the change. > > >> > > >> However, the warnings/errors output by cmake don't include a reference > > >> to CMAKE_AUTOMOC_RELAXED_MODE (as that is not referenced in all > > >> error/warning cases). > > > > > > Do you have commit e474dcb23197489640456b4 already ? > > > > http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=stage/cmake.git;a=commit;h=e474dcb2319748964045 > > 6b 46862a5aa7019834a5 > > > > > I committed this Wednesday evening and though I had inserted it in all > > > places where it makes sense. > > > > Yes, I have this commit already. It might make sense to put the message > > in the other places. > > I'll have a look.
I had a look. >From my POV they look good as they are. Where would you like to have additional mentions of CMAKE_AUTOMOC_RELAXED_MODE, and what should they actually say ? (In strict mode I don't check for all the special conditions, so it is currently not possible to reliably determine whether an error in strict mode will be handled in relaxed mode). Alex -- 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
