Re: [cmake-developers] The Ninja generator errors out for any project that enables Fortran
On 14/06/2013 03:24, Bill Hoffman wrote: On 6/13/2013 7:35 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote: If anyone here is game to do a quick fix for the Ninja generator so that is supports Fortran, I would be happy to help out by testing the fix using the build_projects project on the Linux and Wine platforms that are accessible to me. There is no quick fix. The fortran depend issue is not easily solved which is why it is not yet implemented. It will take several weeks of development and some possible changes to ninja to accomplish this task. Sadly, I have not found a funding source or developer willing to support this effort. Even for C/C++, it could be interesting to have an option to make Ninja use pre-generated dependencies from the CMake scanner instead of special gcc commands to automagically generate them. The code to deal with this already exists in the Make generator. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Limitations of IS_ABSOLUTE
On 21/12/12 11:19, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2012-12-21 09:43+0100 Eric Noulard wrote:
2012/12/21 Alan W. Irwin
irwin-ICHe1znInSgulI1VNbnaeCwD8/ffd...@public.gmane.org:
Obviously for my use case it does look like a
reasonable alternative is to use file(GLOB...) followed by a check of
the result variable to see if it is empty. But implementation of an
additional IF subcommand called IS_FILE which just checks for the
existence of the specified file would do this in fewer lines and does
Precisely the purpose of
if(EXISTS ${file})
I think.
Thanks, Eric. EXISTS is what I needed.
I still think adding the qualifying phrase if it exists or not to the
IS_ABSOLUTE documentation would be useful.
I'd rather IS_ABSOLUTE did not force the file to exist.
I use it to check if some paths are absolute, regardless of whether they
exist.
--
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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] string(MAKE_C_IDENTIFIER) subcommand
On 22/12/12 13:02, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hi there, GenerateExportHeader has a bug where if the target name is kde-config, for example, it generates content like #ifndef KDE-CONFIG_EXPORT_H #define KDE-CONFIG_EXPORT_H This is not as intended. The problem is that the target name is used with TOUPPER, but is not otherwise filtered for invalid characters. I propose adding a string subcommand MAKE_C_IDENTIFIER and using it. Any comments? Why does it need to be built-in? Do it as a cmake macro or function. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
[cmake-developers] CTEST_USE_LAUNCHERS and Ninja
CTEST_USE_LAUNCHERS is a feature that allows better reporting of compilation errors to a dashboard. Unfortunately, it only works with the Makefile generator. Since ninja is significantly faster and just plain better, I use ninja on all the builders in my test farm. I'd like to know if there is any plan to add CTEST_USE_LAUNCHERS support to Ninja. If someone is willing to guide me (I have no idea how to do this and this option seems barely documented), I can try to implement it. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Sublime Text 2 / SublimeClang Generator
On 12/10/2012 00:05, Morne' Chamberlain wrote: Hi My name is Morné Chamberlain and this is my first post to this list. I recently started using Sublime Text 2 as a text editor and light development environment. I use CMake in many of my projects and felt the need for a Sublime Text 2 project file generator for CMake. So a couple of days ago I started to implement a generator, based initially of off the CodeBlocks one. Current status: - All source and CMakeLists.txt files are included in the generated project file, with the directory tree structure. I mostly use Sublime Text for its great scalability. I can add a directory with 20k files and I'll be able to work with them instantly. I hope your generated configuration does not add files one by one and is still very fast to load for such cases. - The generated project file also includes a sublimeclang_options section where include paths and compiler definitions are defined for use by the SublimeClang plugin (C/C++ as you type syntax and error checking plugin for Sublime Text that uses llvm and clang). sublimeclang works very badly for large projects or projects that are costly to compile. I hope it can be disabled? - Currently only tested on Ubuntu 12.04 with Unix Makefiles. Would it be possible to make it work with Ninja as well? -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Tests with custom launchers and Not Run
On 09/12/2012 11:23 PM, Mathias Gaunard wrote: On 12/09/2012 22:39, Mathias Gaunard wrote: I'd be content with just interpreting a return value of 77 as a Not Run status; this is a fairly trivial change that should work well in any existing setups. I don't think it is really needed to make things as complex as in the bug report. Any intelligence, if required, can go in the test command itself. Simple patch attached. This fulfills my needs well enough and I've just configured my cross-compilation test servers to use it. This is simple and works. Is it satisfying? Any chance of having it included? -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Tests with custom launchers and Not Run
On 09/18/2012 11:37 PM, David Cole wrote: I don't like it. Existing tests that run and return, for example, a number of errors that occurred, will magically appear as not run when that number just so happens to be 77. If there are enough people who think this is simple and works and are not concerned about the accidental matching of an intentional return value of 77 that does NOT mean not run ... then I will relent and say, so be it, and allow it in. But only if there are some people who speak up here or add notes to the bug. It just seems wrong to me to treat 77 as some special number here. Well, you need to interpret a return value as a special value to be able to tell executables could not be tested. Without this, a whole category status is entirely unusable to whoever wants to use custom launchers! That's a pretty serious issue to me. 77 already exists in the autotools world, so it seems like a good idea to re-use it. Making the executable return the number of failing tests is a very bad idea: it doesn't even scale beyond 255 for the average operating system. Certain operating systems also have funny behaviour with exit status as well: with OpenVMS, all even values are considered failures and all odd values are considered successes. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Tests with custom launchers and Not Run
I'd be content with just interpreting a return value of 77 as a Not Run status; this is a fairly trivial change that should work well in any existing setups. I don't think it is really needed to make things as complex as in the bug report. Any intelligence, if required, can go in the test command itself. On 12/09/2012 20:59, David Cole wrote: There's discussion about that in the following bug tracker entry: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8466 That issue is presently in the 'backlog' though, which means nobody is actively looking at it. And there does not appear to be a consensus forming about what the right solution to the problem is. Although if everybody else involve converges on a reasonable consensus *and* the CDash results still make sense, I will withdraw my objections to the feature request. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
[cmake-developers] Backlog bugs
I had filed a few bugs that were relatively major, but they were moved to the backlog. I haven't been able to find the procedure to move them out of it. I believe a lot of major bugs were moved to the backlog without their authors being able to do anything, including bugs with patches ready to commit or where developers had already investigated the problem. In particular some people told me they had been severely put off by CMake development when their bugs with attached patches that really improved CMake were moved to the backlog and ignored. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
[cmake-developers] Backlog bugs
I had filed a bug that were relatively major, but they were moved to the backlog. I haven't been able to find the procedure to move it out of it. I believe a lot of major bugs were moved to the backlog without their authors being able to do anything, including bugs with patches ready to commit or where developers had already investigated the problem. In particular some people told me they had been severely put off by CMake development when their bugs with attached patches that really imporved CMake were moved to the backlog and ignored. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
