On 2008-03-23 20:57-0400 Bill Hoffman wrote:
if(CMAKE_CACHE_MAJOR_VERSION EQUAL 2 AND CMAKE_CACHE_MINOR_VERSION EQUAL
4)
CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION and CMAKE_MINOR_VERSION should be set:
Thanks for that reminder. I have now made the change and those variables
work fine (without confusing issues w
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2008-03-23 16:58-0400 Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
The difference is caused because FindwxWidgets delivers
wxWidgets_DEFINITIONS as a blank delimited string for 2.4.8 and as a
list
for the cvs version.
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
Hi Bill:
The Fortran 95 issue turned out to be that the default location for Fortran
95 modules has been moved from the top-level ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR} to the
more
logical subdirectory (in our case ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/bindings/f95) where
the associated fortran library was cr
Hi Bill:
The Fortran 95 issue turned out to be that the default location for Fortran
95 modules has been moved from the top-level ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR} to the more
logical subdirectory (in our case ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/bindings/f95) where
the associated fortran library was created in the build tree.
On 2008-03-23 16:58-0400 Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
The difference is caused because FindwxWidgets delivers
wxWidgets_DEFINITIONS as a blank delimited string for 2.4.8 and as a list
for the cvs version.
Hello Alan,
Sorry for
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2008-03-20 15:04-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing out that empty -I. I will track down why the cvs
> > version of CMake does that (while 2.4.8 does not) and get back to you. In
> > any case, it sounds like this PLplot
On 2008-03-20 15:04-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that empty -I. I will track down why the cvs
version of CMake does that (while 2.4.8 does not) and get back to you. In
any case, it sounds like this PLplot/CMake cvs problem has nothing to do
with the above issue with librari
Hi Bill:
I changed the subject line to something more appropriate and will get back
to the original subject of generated Makefile efficiency in due course.
On 2008-03-20 16:46-0400 Bill Hoffman wrote:
I guess we failed with the message
"The easiest way to avoid this warning is to set poli