Brad King wrote: > On 02/22/2013 11:32 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> Brad King wrote: >>> Can't you instead simply have the usage requirements skip appending >>> a target's own requirements to itself? That way the resulting >>> generator expression would still not have a self reference. >> >> Yes, but I only realized that after replying to the rest of the mail :). > > Thanks. The new approach in the topic looks good. Now the commit that > you mostly reverted should become just: > > - return parent->Parent ? CYCLIC_REFERENCE : SELF_REFERENCE; > + return (parent == this->Parent) ? SELF_REFERENCE : > CYCLIC_REFERENCE; > > right? Can you please squash them back together and write a new commit > message that explains why this one hunk is needed?
Done. I used the same commit message though. I'm not sure what else to put into it. > >>> ? The LinkInterfaceLoop test was added here: >>> >>> http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=8e756d2b >>> >>> to cover a case that was accidentally allowed but that should not be >>> used. I'd rather not drop this great safety check for >>> backward-compatibility with bad code. >> >> Perhaps a policy can be added for that? > > Yes, but I'd rather not squeeze it in before 2.8.11. If you add one > we can keep the topic in your clone and put it in after the release. I added a suggestion to the bug tracker instead. Thanks, 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
