I already sent a few comments after Philip's reply to this mail. As a CMake novice I'm not sure I'm the best person to be involved in this discussion but I guess I'll give it a shot :).
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:13:50PM -0400, David Cole wrote: > platforms. Granted, there are several things to consider in a re-design that > would allow extending to platform-organized sln/vcproj files... but I think > it would be better in the long run than simply adding new CMake generators > every time somebody wants a new architecture in a Visual Studio project. Agreed. Btw note that VS Express apparently cannot support cross-compiling, so that introduces another small wrinkle since the VS generator would have to be different from the VS Express generator. > The main issue is TRY_COMPILE results. They will be different for different > architectures. Of course, strictly speaking, you could construct try_compile > calls that give you one result in a Debug build and another in a Release > build, right now. (Different build time configs may results in different > results...) So.... really try_compile needs to be avoided or somehow account > for different configs and platforms for a project to work as expected after > being configured by CMake. (Iterating over all generated configs/platforms > and storing separate results keyed by config and platform would be one > approach...) This is also interesting. As a workaround, does anyone know if it's possible to let CMake generate a .vcproj for each generator (win32, x64, wince, whatever) as it does today, then combining those .vcproj together at the end? The .vcproj are just XML, and from a cursory investigation it looks like the only things that a combining script would need to do is merge the <Platforms> and <Configurations> sections, and hopefully Visual Studio could handle the rest? This is obviously a bit hacky, but it could work well with Philip's proposal about a "multi-tabbed" CMake GUI, and it might get some of our developers off our backs until a more complete redesign could be completed :). David I'm still happy to open an issue in the tracker, though it looks like we have more to iron out before something meaningful can be entered as a feature request. tyler _______________________________________________ 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
