On 03/12/2013 06:30 PM, Brad King wrote: > On 03/12/2013 06:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> My AutomocFixWithoutQt branch basically reverts the first commit, so automoc >> is now again only one step, without the temporary vector of targets, without >> needing additional checks. In this form the case that Qt was not present was >> already handled correctly. >> So with your fix and without Stephens first commit (79568f95) everything >> would >> have been fine already. > > ...except that the test case added by his patch then fails. > The test case covers exactly the header-only case. I actually did this > approach first. That's why I rebased and cleaned up your topic. Then > I found the remaining test failure and switched to Stephen's approach. > >> So my first patch in the branch basically reverts 79568f95. > > Yes, I cleaned up the commit message to explain what is actually reverted > and what is not. However, see the discussion of GetIncludeDirectories: > > http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=79568f95 > > I think the two steps are needed to make that work. Stephen?
Steve, we need the two-step automoc so that linked targets are available for GetIncludeDirectories, right? Can you and Alex agree that fix-automoc-no-qt is sufficient for the upcoming release? -Brad -- 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
