Hi,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:17:33AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:39:03 +0000
> From: "Malfettone, Kris" <[email protected]>
> Hi all, I never got a response about this and figured I would try replying to
> the question to hopefully catch someone's attention. Any response on this
> question would be much appreciated.
Sidestep things by working towards using Ninja? (in case of development
via Linux make)
See recent discussions on this list.
I just got the latest update of Ninja generator (i.e., a CMake "fork")
and ninja, and now (previously incorrect) target ordering via dependencies
works perfectly, too.
And it appears that for my build at least, using Ninja instead of make
is *awfully* faster (somehow it ends up building in ~ 10 minutes instead
of 25 - perhaps that's also due to seemingly different dependency scanning
of Ninja vs. Makefiles generator).
And of course incremental rebuilds are instant vs. multi-seconds (due to
plain Ninja build info vs. recursive - and thus not non-recursive - make
invocation).
Note to author: I found that ninja -t clean does a truly thorough
cleanup - all CMake configure run build tree info is lost, and things
have to be rerun (best done via a manual "${CMAKE_COMMAND} ."),
as clearly opposed to what happens in the Makefile case,
where the generated build environment is still left alive
and you can simply restart build via make.
Andreas Mohr
_______________________________________________
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
