On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:54:41PM +0200, Michael Wild wrote: > On 25. Oct, 2010, at 16:45 , Marcel Loose wrote: > > Wouldn't it make more sense to use 'make -k' instead? > > Some weeks ago I also wanted to propose this, but then realized one > important drawback of -k: Say, you have target B depending on A. If A > fails, nothing from B will be compiled, thus hiding programming errors > that will only show up once A is fixed. What needs to be fixed is the > error parser in CTest.
Marcel, I think you can override this compiler flag with use of CTestCustom.cmake or one of those override mechanisms. Michael and everyone, I think that use case is pretty narrow. If I know that B depends on A and I see that A failed, I'm going to take a pretty suspicious view of any build errors in B -- what if they were somehow caused by the failure in A? Besides, doesn't -k satisfy your use case while removing the confusing and erroneous report of success caused by using -i? Thanks, 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
