Hi Karl!
I'm currently (as a consultant) converting ~2.5 Mio LOC C++/C from
vcproj/Makefiles/qmake to cmake.
Can you say something of the motivations for your client to do this?
I suspect that you are expected to keep most of their development
workflow and processes in order. Which parts a
Hi Pedro!
Windows and nmake don't offer any feasible way to parallelize, so we are
stuck there.
If you haven't already, you might want to take a lot at JOM, which is
essentially parallel nmake: http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/jom. JOM
is supported by CMake.
Thank you Pedro. One of our develo
Hello Alex!
[Dependencies to generated files are] handled properly by cmake-generated
> makefiles and project files.
You use add_custom_command() to generate files, and if you really list all
files the custom command generates after the OUTPUT keyword, parallel builds
will work properly.
Gre
Am 30.10.2010 13:54, schrieb Benjamin King:
Hello,
I'm working on a ~1.5Mio LOC C++ project and our buildsystem is a hodgepodge of
handcrafted Makefiles, shell scripts and
qmake projects.
I tried to convert a subset to CMake and it looks very promising so far.
I'm currently (as a consultant)
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> Hi I saw in the log you added a case for Python 2.7,
> Would you be able to add a check for Python 3.x ?
>
> For Blender 3D we use CMake and only support python 3.x series.
I added that (or part of it at least). I suspect it is too late, a
Hi I saw in the log you added a case for Python 2.7,
Would you be able to add a check for Python 3.x ?
For Blender 3D we use CMake and only support python 3.x series.
___
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Benjamin King wrote:
> Hi Andreas!
>
>>> Our build is taking ages (almost a three hours on the fastest of our
>>> servers) and it would be really painful if everybody needed to rebuild
>>> everything for himself in the morning.
>>
>> 3 hours sounds quite excessive
On 2010-10-31 13:48+0100 Benjamin King wrote:
Hi Alan!
Our build is taking ages (almost a three hours on the fastest of our
servers) and it would be really painful if everybody needed to rebuild
everything for himself in the morning.
Aren't you distributing your source code with some tool t
On Sunday 31 October 2010, Benjamin King wrote:
> Hi Andreas!
>
> >> Our build is taking ages (almost a three hours on the fastest of our
> >> servers) and it would be really painful if everybody needed to rebuild
> >> everything for himself in the morning.
> >
> > 3 hours sounds quite excessively
Hi Alan!
Our build is taking ages (almost a three hours on the fastest of our
servers) and it would be really painful if everybody needed to
rebuild everything for himself in the morning.
Aren't you distributing your source code with some tool that preserves
the creation dates of source files
Hi Andreas!
Our build is taking ages (almost a three hours on the fastest of our
servers) and it would be really painful if everybody needed to rebuild
everything for himself in the morning.
3 hours sounds quite excessively long.
Yepp, that's too long, really. Thanks for your suggestions on cut
On Thursday 28 October 2010, Marcel Loose wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the best way to work around a broken Find module?
>
> A technique I've used up till now is to wrap the broken module in a
> module with the same name that I store in my own module directory. This
> way, my wrapper module will be
12 matches
Mail list logo
