Shiqing,
Don't waste your time. While the idea behind cccl is nice, the
overhead is unbelievably expensive. As a comparison it took 2 hours to
compile Open MPI on Windows using cccl and makefile, while it takes
less than 4 minutes to compile exactly the same set of functionalities
using the project generated by cmake and the native cl compiler.
Using cccl was the original approach that I envisioned for the Windows
port. Unfortunately, due to long compilation times, I give up this
approach and move to using the native tools (project + microsoft
compiler).
george.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 14:18 , Shiqing Fan wrote:
Hi Ralf,
Sorry for replying late.
what keeps you from using the autotools-based build system
with MSVC? All you should need is a wrapper like cccl.
I didn't know this 'cccl' before, but I did give a try last weekend
with Cygwin.
Unfortunately, I couldn't make it work for Open MPI (latest trunk).
I think cccl might work for small projects, but for large and
complicated project, it couldn't work easily. By simply replacing
compiler name and flags cannot make it go trough compilation and
build phase, something has to be done manually with some other
scripts. Maybe there's some good way to cope it with Open MPI, if
anyone has succeeded with that, please let me know about it, it's
very interesting for me anyway. :-)
On the other hand, there are more advantages to use CMake on
Windows, e.g. easy to use with a GUI, better integration with Visual
Studio IDE, automatically produce installer(tarballs) with CPACK,
make tests with CTEST, etc.
Regards,
Shiqing
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
