On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Michael Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > Because it may horrendously interfere with my current established workflows
Why? > but I would be open to trying this out. The main issue I can think of is the > whole release/debug versions of libraries clobbering each other during the > build. This would force an updated policy for the decorating of > library/executable names or generating sub folders for each type of build > configuration. Doesn't Code Blocks have a convention like this already? > Didn't we just discuss this in another thread? Yes, we did. > The default is for CMake to generate a "Release" configuration for Makefile > based projects. ie, if you do NOT specify or otherwise set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE > then you will be a "Release" configuration. AFAIK that's false. Olaf _______________________________________________ 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
