Hi there again,
I'm using cmake to create some visual studio projects, and want to
include some non-C files (config.txt for instance) into the vcproj file
so that my Visual Studio users can edit the file from within the IDE.
I can't add them using ADD_LIBRARY or ADD_EXECUTABLE, so how do I
From: Joshua Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 November 2007 15:09
To: Philip Lowman
Cc: Josef Karthauser; CMake ML
Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding non .cpp or .h file to a visual studio project.
Philip Lowman wrote:
Josef Karthauser wrote:
Hi there again,
I’m using cmake to
Philip Lowman wrote:
Josef Karthauser wrote:
Hi there again,
I’m using cmake to create some visual studio projects, and want to
include some non-C files (config.txt for instance) into the vcproj file
so that my Visual Studio users can edit the file from within the IDE.
I can’t add them
From: Eric Noulard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used Java for 4+ years (all thoses years are overlapping :=)
it was really pleased using it for cross platform GUI.
And I was really disappointed because the java I used
was lacking generics such that I need to cast here and there when
using
On 11/1/07 10:35 AM, Mike Jackson said:
I am on a MacBook Pro and need to compile for PPC. I launch ccmake
and set CMAKE_OSX_ARCHITECTURES to ppc. I then generate and then run
make VERBOSE=1. What gets produced is still an i386 binary though.
If I manually put in -arch ppc into both the c
Mark Wyszomierski wrote:
Is it possible to add an ignore library to CMakeLists.txt? This is
specifically for a win32 project. I want to ignore:
nafxcwd.lib
libcmtd.lib
Here's how I do this with CMake 2.4.6. Unfortunately passing more than
one /NODEFAULTLIB arguments was broken in
Eric Noulard wrote:
CMAKE_LOAD_PLUGIN(TCL)
CMAKE_TCL(IN_VAR a
IN_VAR b
OUT_VAR g
OUT_VAR h
SCRIPT_STRING any tcl code)
or
CMAKE_TCL(IN_VAR a
IN_VAR b
OUT_VAR g
Jesper Eskilson wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
For this case, you could have something like this:
# if SOME_PROGRAM has a value but the program has been moved
# or removed from the system, then clear the cache entry
# so that find_program will try again.
if(SOME_PROGRAM AND NOT EXISTS
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 1, 2007 11:40 PM, Sanchez, Juan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tcl is a simple language, and is well understood. It has already been
ported to about every platform out there. You don't need QT or wxWidgets,
because the Tk extensions of it
I took a look at the cmake source and I think perhaps this is a bug. The
FILES mode checks that the specified files are not directories, and I
think maybe the DIRECTORY mode simply wants to check that the specified
paths are not regular files?
--- t/cmake-2.4.7/Source/cmInstallCommand.cxx
Sanchez, Juan wrote:
Hello Bill,
add_library(foo SHARED foo.cxx)
won't work.
I meant it worked in the current cmake language, I know it does not work
in tcl.
Developers who are not hostile to ideas concerning improvements to the
language.
I am not hostile to ideas about improvements
Josef Karthauser wrote:
Hi there again,
I’m using cmake to create some visual studio projects, and want to
include some non-C files (config.txt for instance) into the vcproj file
so that my Visual Studio users can edit the file from within the IDE.
I can’t add them using ADD_LIBRARY or
Hi,
Is it possible to add an ignore library to CMakeLists.txt? This is
specifically for a win32 project. I want to ignore:
nafxcwd.lib
libcmtd.lib
Thanks
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Nov 2, 2007 6:04 AM, Eric Noulard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many features in the CMake language don't really work the way people
expect, or are not documented, or both.
Documentation is not as good as it should be
but re-implementing something (either TCL, Python, Perl)
won't make the
On Nov 2, 2007 9:04 AM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
My concern is that if the status quo is maintained, CMake script will
always be ugly to program with.
Yes. No doubt about that. It is already uglier to program with than
most modern scripting
Existing CMake plugin :
EXECUTE_PROCESS(COMMAND tclsh $ENV{HOME}/myTclScript.tcl OUTPUT_VARIABLE
ov RESULT_VARIABLE rv)
You are responsible for making sure tclsh is callable for your project's
users...
Similarly for python, ruby, perl, shell script, or *whatever*
Or, if you want it done as part
As you said I am using these ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND / ADD_CUSTOM_TARGET
But its not working at my end... please help me out
This is what I have in my CMakeLists.txt file
===
Set( MODULE_OUTPUT_FILEShello.o
2007/11/2, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Existing CMake plugin :
EXECUTE_PROCESS(COMMAND tclsh $ENV{HOME}/myTclScript.tcl OUTPUT_VARIABLE
ov RESULT_VARIABLE rv)
Yes you are right I can do that.
You are responsible for making sure tclsh is callable for your project's
users...
That why I
On Nov 2, 2007 11:49 AM, Juan E. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
To make real improvements in all of those areas, you'd need a lot of
funding. What kind of mandate do you have? There's not much point in
saying everything's gonna be better if
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 11:49 AM, Juan E. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
To make real improvements in all of those areas, you'd need a lot of
funding. What kind of mandate do you have? There's not much point in
saying
Is it feasible to modify the CMake language to have lexical scoping?
My code would be a lot more readable and bug free if I didn't have to
write things like this all day long:
MACRO(SPLIT_ON_LASTWORD the_stream the_word
splitonlastword_preamble splitonlastword_got_match splitonlastword_trail
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Is it worth trying to address these problems and make CMake a better
scripting language?
Yes, but currently as a low priority. CMake first needs to have an
extremely solid cross-compile toolchain and support as many systems as
possible first without any major
Well there's no ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND or ADD_CUSTOM_TARGET for one thing. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
On Nov 2, 2007 7:40 AM, Suhas Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you said I am using these ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND / ADD_CUSTOM_TARGET
But its not working at my end... please help me out
This is
Hi all,
I'm interested in the idea of a more powerful CMake scripting.
I'm convinced I lack powerful scripting sometimes (may be many times)
but my opinion is it's not CMake's script job.
2007/11/2, Sanchez, Juan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tcl is a simple language, and is well understood. It has
2007/11/2, Thomas Sondergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems that package_source just packs the source directory. I'd like
it to work like autotools make DIST, ie it packs the source files plus
whatever is put in EXTRA_DIST.
I remember the pros/cons of cpack
(the command used when make
On Friday 02 November 2007 09:54:51 Brandon Van Every wrote:
Is it feasible to modify the CMake language to have lexical scoping?
I agree. The lack of variable scoping is currently my biggest annoyance with
custom macros. Additionally, I believe that custom macros are pretty much
required
It seems that package_source just packs the source directory. I'd like
it to work like autotools make DIST, ie it packs the source files plus
whatever is put in EXTRA_DIST.
How can I do that?
Regards,
Thomas
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
On Nov 2, 2007 1:01 PM, Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 11:49 AM, Juan E. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
To make real improvements in all of those areas, you'd need a lot of
funding. What kind
On Nov 2, 2007 2:26 PM, Ken Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the macro command is like a cpp macro so scoping does not make a lot of
sense for it. What would/could make sense is a function command that creates
a function. (think of the difference in a macro versus a function in c,
macros have
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 November 2007 23:09
To: Josef Karthauser; CMake ML
Subject: Re: [CMake] Make clean - doesn't clean dependencies.
Josef Karthauser wrote:
It doesn't appear that a 'make clean' in a subdirectory of the
Variables can be a PITA :) They have unusual scoping, mixed documentation,
etc. In CVS there have been some changes. We have extended the concept of
properties which are scoped to an object (source file, target, directory,
global, test, for example) and are documented, can be inherited, and can be
On Nov 2, 2007 1:57 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 1:01 PM, Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be willing to entertain any other suggestions for scripting
languages, as long as:
1. the syntax is consistent
2. the language is not bloated
3. the
I have an idea. What if we created a variable_scope command?
Something like this:
set(a world)
variable_scope_begin(a)
set(a hello)
message(${a})
variable_scope_end(a)
message(${a})
The above would print out:
hello
world
This could be done with the current macros, or even an include file of
Hi, I created a FindGECKO modul, which tries
to look for the NPAPI headers for creating
FireFox plug-ins, the problem is that in some
distributions the paths have directories with
it's version number... for example:
/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.5
/usr/include/nspr4
here is part of the actual
Ken,
But to the question at hand...adding scope to variables. Variables have
scope right now of
1) the CMakeListfile they are defined in
2) any included files that are included after the variable is set
3) and subdirectories of the directory they were defined in and processed
after the
On Nov 2, 2007 3:44 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an idea. What if we created a variable_scope command?
Bad markerting idea. Nobody programs in this idiom. (Well, I don't
know about Perl, as far as I'm concerned they're nobody. ;-) Lotsa
people program with functions and
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 3:44 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an idea. What if we created a variable_scope command?
Bad markerting idea. Nobody programs in this idiom. (Well, I don't
know about Perl, as far as I'm concerned they're nobody. ;-) Lotsa
people
On Nov 2, 2007 4:13 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 3:44 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an idea. What if we created a variable_scope command?
Bad markerting idea. Nobody programs in this idiom. (Well, I don't
know
On Nov 2, 2007 2:39 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SET and SETLOCAL is one possibility. I could live with it.
While we're at it, how difficult would it be for functions to return a
value that can be used in other contexts? GMake has $(whatever ...)
functions that can be used
My suggestion as a temporary work around would be to apply a namespace
prefix to the variables in your macro.
Create the macro with short variable names x.
Test
Replace variable names with uniques ones MACRO_DOIT_x
Release
If included in another file, your users don't have to see the munged
code
On Nov 2, 2007 4:22 PM, Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion as a temporary work around would be to apply a namespace
prefix to the variables in your macro.
That's what my example is. I even pointed out the naming policy I
use. I want to talk about making things better, not how
Oh,
I guess you did. My apologies.
I guess the best way to fix your issue would be to move to a lua frontend.
Juan
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 4:22 PM, Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion as a temporary work around would be to apply a namespace
prefix to the
On Nov 2, 2007 4:34 PM, Juan Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the best way to fix your issue would be to move to a lua frontend.
It's a way. Another way is to add functions to CMake script.
I've started looking at Lua games on Sourceforge, as an excuse to
learn something about it.
Bill,
set(a world)
variable_scope_begin(a)
set(a hello)
message(${a})
variable_scope_end(a)
message(${a})
This would be a workable solution for me. It would certainly be a step in the
right direction, especially if it is easy enough to implement. I was into
PERL years ago, so my
On Nov 2, 2007 5:02 PM, KSpam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill,
set(a world)
variable_scope_begin(a)
set(a hello)
message(${a})
variable_scope_end(a)
message(${a})
This would be a workable solution for me. It would certainly be a step in the
right direction, especially if it is easy
On Nov 2, 2007 5:08 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 5:02 PM, KSpam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill,
set(a world)
variable_scope_begin(a)
set(a hello)
message(${a})
variable_scope_end(a)
message(${a})
This would be a workable solution for me.
Brandon,
You missed the part where Bill mentioned that variable_scope would take
multiple arguments. Your example:
variable_scope_begin(scratch_preamble)
variable_scope_begin(got_match)
variable_scope_begin(not_trail)
variable_scope_begin(empty)
# [...]
# my actual code, blah blah blah
On Nov 2, 2007 5:57 PM, KSpam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
variable_scope_begin(scratch_preamble got_match not_trail empty)
# [...]
# my actual code, blah blah blah
# [...]
variable_scope_end(scratch_preamble got_match not_trail empty)
That's better, but
On Nov 1, 2007 7:48 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
^ doesn't anchor against the original input string. It anchors
against the string as it is processed! If replacements cause the
string to have a new beginning, it anchors against the new beginning.
I want to say that's a bug.
Brandon,
Of course, if we could get braces into the mix, it would reduce to:
variable_scope(scratch_preamble got_match not_trail empty)
{
# [...]
# my actual code, blah blah blah
# [...]
}
Why is this better
On Nov 2, 2007 6:51 PM, Justin C. Keesling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line is not what is possible, but rather how can we make this build
system easier to use, more flexible, and more powerful without users having
to resort to hacks. Verbose variable prefixes is a hack (one that I
On Nov 2, 2007 5:25 AM, Salvatore Iovene
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
are there any plans for supporting the symbian platform? I.e. having
CMake generate the build files for Symbian.
Can't imagine why it would be on the drawing board, so to speak. Of
course, contributions would probably be
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007 5:25 AM, Salvatore Iovene
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
are there any plans for supporting the symbian platform? I.e. having
CMake generate the build files for Symbian.
Can't imagine why it would be on the drawing board, so to speak. Of
course,
Oops I missed the main statements...
Sorry for that
Contibuing to the previous post ...
ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND(OUTPUT DRIVER_BIN_FILE
COMMAND ${KBUILD_CMD}
DEPENDS ${MODULE_SOURCE_FILES} VERBATIM
)
ADD_CUSTOM_TARGET(driver
54 matches
Mail list logo
