On Thursday 10 December 2009 03:25:25 Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I agree you're free to choose whatever build system you'd like if it's
>  going to be in a separate repos.
> 
> I've used CMake many times and it is a very nice build system indeed. It's
>  also very convenient to use on windows (it can generate Visual Studio
>  files), and recently they made very easy to cross-compile linux->windows.
> 
> The problem I had when I tried to convert Mesa to CMake was that it didn't
>  support convenience libraries -- a static library which contains -fPIC
>  objects. All mesa/gallium auxiliary libraries are like that since the
>  final target is a shared object, and it there was no way to extend CMake
>  to do that at that time [1]. Has this changed recently, or is this not
>  relevant for a OpenCL statetracker?

A bit of both  :) 
The state tracker itself won't be producing convenience libraries, it's really 
just a single library so it should be fine either way.
And the solution that the CMake folks seem to be advocating (splitting sources 
into separate CMakeLists.txt files:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ#Does_CMake_support_.22convenience.22_libraries.3F
 
)
is imho a reasonable one. 
And yea, I really like that CMake can produce native build files on all 
platforms (Makefiles on linux, Visual Studio on Windows, XCode build files on 
osx...) and that it has self-contained installers for all platforms, it's very 
neat.

z

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Mesa3d-dev mailing list
Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev

Reply via email to