On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:06 PM, Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Wilson wrote: > >> Now, everything you have said about not encouraging this kind of usage for >> target_link_options() and libraries, etc… is valid. However, does that >> standard apply to tests. Are tests just tests? > > Admittedly, the target_compile_options tests use defines as test input. I'd > gladly swap that out for an alternative flag if there were a suitable flag > which gave us the same test coverage on the dashboard. The > add_compile_options command documents itself as not suitable for > preprocessor defines and include directories, however. I guess > target_compile_options documentation should get a similar note. > > I would also like to see the target_link_options documentation discourage > use for specifying libraries. > > If you feel so strongly about using a -llibrary flag in the tests, then > that's ok, but for me 'the file must exist' is a winning argument in favor > of not doing that. I agree, ‘the file must exist’ is a winning argument. I’m not trying to push for this type of test of using libraries with target_link_options or add_link_options. (I’m already working on changes on the order that you suggested). My question has evolved more into the question of ‘what are first principles for tests?'
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- 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
