Re: [cmake-developers] What should the behaviour of NUMBER_OF_LOGICAL_CORES be?

[Daniel Pfeifer]

Hi,

I agree that it should be total number of cores. In addition,
cmake_host_system_information() might be extended to provide the number of
cores per physical core.
This aligns with the information in the XML procuded by CTest: The Site
element has the attributes NumberOfLogicalCPU, NumberOfPhysicalCPU, and
LogicalProcessorsPerPhysical.

Cheers, Daniel

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Nicolás Bértolo 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This question comes from https://gitlab.kitware.com/
> cmake/cmake/issues/16594
> Currently cmake_host_system_information(RESULT logical QUERY
> NUMBER_OF_LOGICAL_CORES) is buggy, some parts of the code that implement it
> assume it refers to the number of cores in the system and some assume it is
> the number of cores per physical core. The documentation implies it is the
> total number of cores, but in my system (AMD FX-8320) it is equal to 1 when
> it should be 8.
>
> I have offered myself to fix this bug, but first I would like to know what
> is the correct return value of this call should be.
> Should it return the number of cores per physical core or the total number
> of cores in the system?
>
> I think it should be the latter, but I would like to hear your opinions.
>
> Regards,
> Nicolás.
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> busca de virus.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> --
>
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more
> information on each offering, please visit:
>
> CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
> CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
> CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/
> opensource/opensource.html
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>
-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

[cmake-developers] What should the behaviour of NUMBER_OF_LOGICAL_CORES be?

[Nicolás Bértolo]

Hi,

This question comes from https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/issues/16594
Currently cmake_host_system_information(RESULT logical QUERY 
NUMBER_OF_LOGICAL_CORES) is buggy, some parts of the code that implement 
it assume it refers to the number of cores in the system and some assume 
it is the number of cores per physical core. The documentation implies 
it is the total number of cores, but in my system (AMD FX-8320) it is 
equal to 1 when it should be 8.


I have offered myself to fix this bug, but first I would like to know 
what is the correct return value of this call should be.
Should it return the number of cores per physical core or the total 
number of cores in the system?


I think it should be the latter, but I would like to hear your opinions.

Regards,
Nicolás.

||



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de 
virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

[Ben Boeckel]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:41:21 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> IMO the right place for managing relocatable builds is in the
> compiler/linker, not in the build tool.

This is about making the files CMake writes relocatable, not the
resulting binaries.

--Ben
-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

[Paul Smith]

IMO the right place for managing relocatable builds is in the
compiler/linker, not in the build tool.

The compiler/linker should provide options that allow the output to be
relocatable regardless of the contents of the command line.  GCC for
example has -fdebug-prefix-map that will allow you to remove prefixes
from pathnames in debug sections of the output.  Unfortunately this is
only part of the solution since it doesn't help with __FILE__ (for
example).  Nevertheless this is the right direction, rather than
modifying the build system.


On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:01 +, Bøe, Sebastian wrote:
> Thank you for the warning and support. We would prefer to not
> maintain
> a fork, but I have not been able to find any other technology
> that is suitable.
> 
> For future reference. The intended use-case is for CMake to act 
> as an engine in an IDE project generator solution similar to the
> below
> solutions[0].
> 
> [0] 
> http://start.atmel.com/
> http://www.st.com/en/embedded-software/stm32cube-embedded-software.ht
> ml
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brad King [mailto:brad.k...@kitware.com] 
> Sent: 26. januar 2017 14:18
> To: Bøe, Sebastian 
> Cc: ben.boec...@kitware.com; cmake-developers@cmake.org
> Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build
> 
> On 01/26/2017 05:57 AM, Bøe, Sebastian wrote:
> > 
> > I will investigate relocatable builds, because in spite of this
> > not 
> > being trivial, I think CMake still comes out as the best suited
> > technology for my use-case.
> 
> We once had an option to produce relative paths in the build system
> and it was a never ending mess of bugs.  Eventually it was ripped
> out.
> It is unlikely we will accept changes to try to re-introduce such an
> option.
> 
> -Brad
> 
-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

[Bøe , Sebastian]

Thank you for the warning and support. We would prefer to not maintain
a fork, but I have not been able to find any other technology
that is suitable.

For future reference. The intended use-case is for CMake to act 
as an engine in an IDE project generator solution similar to the below
solutions[0].

[0] 
http://start.atmel.com/
http://www.st.com/en/embedded-software/stm32cube-embedded-software.html



-Original Message-
From: Brad King [mailto:brad.k...@kitware.com] 
Sent: 26. januar 2017 14:18
To: Bøe, Sebastian 
Cc: ben.boec...@kitware.com; cmake-developers@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

On 01/26/2017 05:57 AM, Bøe, Sebastian wrote:
> I will investigate relocatable builds, because in spite of this not 
> being trivial, I think CMake still comes out as the best suited technology 
> for my use-case.

We once had an option to produce relative paths in the build system and it was 
a never ending mess of bugs.  Eventually it was ripped out.
It is unlikely we will accept changes to try to re-introduce such an option.

-Brad

-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

[Brad King]

On 01/26/2017 05:57 AM, Bøe, Sebastian wrote:
> I will investigate relocatable builds, because in spite of this not being
> trivial, I think CMake still comes out as the best suited technology for my 
> use-case.

We once had an option to produce relative paths in the build system
and it was a never ending mess of bugs.  Eventually it was ripped out.
It is unlikely we will accept changes to try to re-introduce such
an option.

-Brad

-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

[Bøe , Sebastian]

I was not aware that this was a non-goal. Thank you
for feedback.

I am sorry if my use-case sounds foreign, but I can't use cmake server mode,
because I can't modify the IDE.

I will investigate relocatable builds, because in spite of this not being
trivial, I think CMake still comes out as the best suited technology for my 
use-case.

-Original Message-
From: Brad King [mailto:brad.k...@kitware.com] 
Sent: 25. januar 2017 17:38
To: Bøe, Sebastian 
Cc: ben.boec...@kitware.com; cmake-developers@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] Eclipse CDT Managed build

On 01/25/2017 11:27 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> not be trivial to get CMake to generate relocatable builds.

This is also an explicit non-goal of CMake.

>> after CMake generation the project can be configured through the IDE UI.

That is likely not compatible with CMake's notion of maintaining the build 
system.

This is why previous similar discussions resulted in the cmake server mode and 
in identifying the value of a declarative spec format that can be managed 
outside of CMake's language processor.

-Brad

-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

Re: [cmake-developers] CMake server-mode aborting

[Nils Gladitz]

On 01/26/2017 10:45 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote:


Hello CMake developers,

I have been using Qt Creator extensively with cmake server-mode for a
while now and am very happy with the results so far. Once the project
is initially configured by cmake it is really nice.

Today I started to look into a bug report that creator behaves
horribly when not all the dependencies of a project are available. In
that case the UI behaves entirely wrong (I just pushed a patch to
improve that on the Creator side into code review).

The root cause seems to be that during configure run CMake just
vanishes. Creator reports back that it crashed. I can unfortunately
not reproduce that problem with any of the CMakeLists.txt files I have
handy, so I am a bit lost at what to do.

Does any of you cmake experts have an idea what might go wrong? I
thought that maybe a MESSAGE(FATAL_ERROR ...) is triggered, causing
cmake server to terminate or something similar. Unfortunately that
does not seem to trigger the server to die for me:-/


I haven't really looked into server mode yet but for something that 
should crash cmake (server or otherwise):


function(foo)
foo()
endfunction()

foo()

Nils
--

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers

[cmake-developers] CMake server-mode aborting

[Tobias Hunger]

Hello CMake developers,

I have been using Qt Creator extensively with cmake server-mode for a
while now and am very happy with the results so far. Once the project
is initially configured by cmake it is really nice.

Today I started to look into a bug report that creator behaves
horribly when not all the dependencies of a project are available. In
that case the UI behaves entirely wrong (I just pushed a patch to
improve that on the Creator side into code review).

The root cause seems to be that during configure run CMake just
vanishes. Creator reports back that it crashed. I can unfortunately
not reproduce that problem with any of the CMakeLists.txt files I have
handy, so I am a bit lost at what to do.

Does any of you cmake experts have an idea what might go wrong? I
thought that maybe a MESSAGE(FATAL_ERROR ...) is triggered, causing
cmake server to terminate or something similar. Unfortunately that
does not seem to trigger the server to die for me:-/

Best Regards,
Tobias
-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more 
information on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers