The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=14490
==
Reported By:Domagoj Saric
Assigned To:
Stephen Kelly wrote:
I'll try to get a reviewable and first-feature-complete infrastructure
branch together soon.
I've pushed a first iteration of the target_compiler_features branch to my
clone.
For the language specification, I added a prefix to each feature. This
matches the feature
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14491
==
Reported By:ingolf
Assigned To:
On 10/16/2013 02:40 PM, James Bigler wrote:
The documentation for target_link_libraries has this description:
target_link_libraries(target
LINK_PRIVATE|LINK_PUBLIC
[[debug|optimized|general] lib] ...
Hi Steve,
Thanks for working on this!
On 10/17/2013 10:28 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
For the language specification, I added a prefix to each feature. This
matches the feature tests of clang for standard features, and it is
extensible to extensions with gnuxx_typeof, msvc_sealed etc.
Brad King wrote:
On 10/16/2013 02:40 PM, James Bigler wrote:
The documentation for target_link_libraries has this description:
target_link_libraries(target
LINK_PRIVATE|LINK_PUBLIC
[[debug|optimized|general] lib] ...
Brad King wrote:
Optional features with defines are not yet implemented. I was considering
renaming target_compiler_features to target_required_features
I think target_compiler_features is a clearer name even if it only
supports required features. Please leave room in the signature for
Ok, I have the patch working and I'm going to send it soon. One question,
is it possible to launch a detached process from within CMake? If I use
EXECUTE_PROCESS to start p4d, CMake waits for it to finish so -for now- I'm
launching the Perforce daemon outside CMake.
Pedro
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013
On 10/17/2013 1:52 PM, Pedro Navarro wrote:
Ok, I have the patch working and I'm going to send it soon. One
question, is it possible to launch a detached process from within CMake?
If I use EXECUTE_PROCESS to start p4d, CMake waits for it to finish so
-for now- I'm launching the Perforce daemon
On 10/17/2013 02:18 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
On 10/17/2013 1:52 PM, Pedro Navarro wrote:
Ok, I have the patch working and I'm going to send it soon. One
question, is it possible to launch a detached process from within CMake?
If I use EXECUTE_PROCESS to start p4d, CMake waits for it to finish
I experimented with nohup but from inside a shell script that was being
executed from execute_process, but that didn't work. I'll give that a try,
thanks!
There happens to be a way to cleanly shutdown perforce, executing p4 admin
stop, so this could mean that we can start p4d if it's present and
On 10/17/2013 03:23 PM, Pedro Navarro wrote:
I experimented with nohup but from inside a shell script
that was being executed from execute_process, but that didn't work.
You also need to disconnect the stdout/stderr pipes by redirecting
them to /dev/null. Then execute_process can fully let go
On 10/17/2013 04:58 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Yes, that was the idea, but I can't rely anymore on a Foo_LIBRARIES variable
(or a slight variation) being set after a successful find_package(Foo):
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=138198795723680w=2
I.e. in the future there will be
Brad King wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:58 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Yes, that was the idea, but I can't rely anymore on a Foo_LIBRARIES
variable (or a slight variation) being set after a successful
find_package(Foo):
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=138198795723680w=2 I.e. in the
On 10/17/2013 4:41 PM, Nils Gladitz wrote:
I pushed my topic ctest-fix-run-serial to stage.
I am taking a look. It has been a long time since I looked at this
code. However, it seems like your patch removes the running of
dependent tests.
old code did this:
StartTest(int test)
...
On 10/17/2013 4:59 PM, Brad King wrote:
As I explained in a sibling response the KWSys Process library
has support for creating detached processes. It should only be
a matter of exposing that through execute_process command options.
+1, this does come up a lot. It would be good to have this
Hello Bill, thanks for looking into this!
All four tests in my example are still run (as you can see in the test
output I provided).
This includes the dependent test.
What I did change is that all tests (from an dependency or otherwise)
are run from StartNextTests() which ensures that serial
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nils Gladitz nilsglad...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bill, thanks for looking into this!
All four tests in my example are still run (as you can see in the test
output I provided).
This includes the dependent test.
What I did change is that all tests (from an
StartTest() returns false without running the test if there are any
dependencies remaining.
Nils
On 17.10.2013 23:57, Bill Hoffman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nils Gladitz nilsglad...@gmail.com
mailto:nilsglad...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bill, thanks for looking into this!
On 2013-10-17 16:59, Brad King wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:56 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
We should think if this should be something that is needed. Running some sort
of background process is a common pattern for all sorts of tests. Often really
detaching is not needed, It is usually sufficient to
20 matches
Mail list logo
