On 10/21/2013 04:05 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > I'm still not sure that generating a header specific to the compiler (ID and > version) is a good idea. [snip] > So, I think maybe it would make sense to list features separately, and if > someone does this:
I thought we had reached that conclusion before. See the bottom of this message: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/6726/focus=7809 Anyway, we agree. > write_compiler_detection_header( > FILE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/grantlee_compiler_detection.h > PREFIX Grantlee_ > FEATURES cxx_final cxx_override > ) Yes, though it still needs the mandatory VERSION. > the generated header would look something like this: Yes. Actually it appears this header will duplicate most of the compiler feature knowledge encoded in the CMake platform modules we discussed before. I wonder if we can come up with a representation that can be used to generate both. -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
