> > I don't understand what you mean by partially. If you had > cuda_add_executable(demo main.cxx demo1.cu demo2.cu), then main.cxx will be > compiled by the host compiler, demo1.cu and demo2.cu will be compiled by > nvcc (CUDA + host compiler), and then all will be linked by the host linker. > In this case I need to agree with you. But I would still vote to have transparency, provide common interface to developers. From my perspective cuda is the same compiler like c++, that's why I would vote to provide the same interface like for CXX or C.
> > The problem with dependencies I think relates to how the build system > represents them. In makefiles the dependencies are explicitly defined, > while in Visual Studio the dependencies for C code is handled by the IDE and > other files are explicit. It seems like a lot of effort to extend CMake > dependency scanning capabilities when this functionality can only be > extended to makefiles. Is this what you are desiring? As far as I correctly understood patch from Peter, implementation for makefile dependency is on place. For me makefile dependency is fine, since I'm using only makefiles. I just tried to understand idea of LANGUAGE inside cmake. I think that in this particular case having new language on place is really good idea. This is what for language was. regards Lukasz -- Lukasz Tasz _______________________________________________ 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
