2014/1/14 Matthew Woehlke :
> On 2014-01-14 10:37, Brad King wrote:
>>
>> On 01/13/2014 01:38 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>>>
>>> does this require a policy now ?
>>>
>>> Somebody could set Foo_VERSION_MAJOR in the toplevel subdir, and have a
>>> project(Foo)
>>> call in a subdir, which would now
2014/1/14 Brad King :
> On 01/13/2014 01:38 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> does this require a policy now ?
>>
>> Somebody could set Foo_VERSION_MAJOR in the toplevel subdir, and have a
>> project(Foo)
>> call in a subdir, which would now unset Foo_VERSION_MAJOR.
>> The same for PROJECT_VERSION_M
2013/12/2 Nils Gladitz :
> On 12/02/2013 09:19 AM, Marcel Loose wrote:
>>
>> What would be the preferred way to pass the location of a built executable
>> target to ADD_TEST? By using the COMMAND option of ADD_TEST, or by using the
>> $ generator expression? Best regards, Marcel Loose.
>
> My perso
2013/11/26 Stephen Kelly :
> Peter Kuemmel wrote:
>> So, is this the right way to improve the pch situation?
>
> I don't know anything about PCH, but Daniel Pfeifer has a branch here:
>
> https://github.com/purpleKarrot/CMake/tree/WIP-PCH-Support
Thanks for pointing a
2013/10/11 Brad King :
> On 10/11/2013 01:09 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>> Will it still be able to generate DocBook, so companies can include
>> the documentation in their handbook?
>
> It can generate whatever Sphinx can generate. IIRC Sphinx does not
> currently support
2013/10/10 Brad King :
> Hi Folks,
>
> ... After considering markup languages
> such as Markdown and AsciiDoc I settled on reStructuredText:
>
> http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html
>
> It has a great extension mechanism and is supported by fantastic
> tools like Sph
Hi Steve and all,
we restarted the CMake-ification of molularized Boost with modern
CMake features here: https://github.com/boost-cmake/boost-cmake
We want to be able to build all Boost libraries together, but also
each library on its own.
Am I correct that in both cases we use the :: name in tll
2013/9/3 Daniel Pfeifer :
> 2013/9/3 Brad King :
>> On 09/03/2013 03:39 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>>> According to http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12930#c30721,
>>> WindowsAppContainer will not pass /ZW to the command line.
>>> Hence, setting VS_WINRT_EXTEN
2013/9/3 Brad King :
> On 09/03/2013 03:39 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>> According to http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12930#c30721,
>> WindowsAppContainer will not pass /ZW to the command line.
>> Hence, setting VS_WINRT_EXTENSIONS will not enable C++/CX and the
>>
2013/9/2 Brad King :
> On 09/02/2013 11:42 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>> The target property VS_WINRT_EXTENSIONS is documented as: "Can be set
>> to enable C++/CX language extensions."
>> Is that really what this property does?
> [snip]
>> So my questio
Hi,
The target property VS_WINRT_EXTENSIONS is documented as: "Can be set
to enable C++/CX language extensions."
Is that really what this property does?
I am trying to build a C++ project (no C++/CX) for ARM with Visual Studio 2012.
As an example, I took the following code:
http://msdn.mic
> 4) The target_* commands always need to be invoked with an explicit
> INTERFACE option.
>
Maybe PUBLIC should be allowed too (providing the same effect)?
I don't really have a rationale. I just wrote PUBLIC a few times by
accident. That might be a hint for a more intuitive interface.
--
Powered
2013/5/25 Alexander Neundorf
> On Saturday 25 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > 2013/5/22 Alexander Neundorf
> >
> > > On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > > > 2013/5/20 Brad King
> > > >
> > > > > We
2013/5/22 Alexander Neundorf
> On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > 2013/5/20 Brad King
> >
> > > We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> > > "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we should reconsid
2013/5/20 Brad King
> We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we should reconsider
> the value and cost.
One of CMake's most powerful features in my opionion is the way it handles
sub-projects.
I can take two CMake-proj
2012/12/7 Stephen Kelly
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> > I haven't tried to analyse how much of the complexity is due to whether
> > target_use_targets or target_link_libraries is used. I think the harder
> > parts of this topic so far have been related to exports. Like I said
> > though, I haven't a
2012/11/6 Stephen Kelly
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
>
So that it is fully aware of all of its [transitive] dependencies (and any
> includes and compile defintions requirements) and I would use it like this:
>
> add_executable(foo_exe ...)
> target_link_libraries(foo_exe boost::mpl)
>
Yeah, I
2012/8/22 Yury G. Kudryashov :
> 2012/8/23 Brad King :
>> On 08/22/2012 04:57 PM, Yury G. Kudryashov wrote:
>>> I'm going to push the current state of my work to
>>> git pull git://gitorious.org/~urkud1/cmake/urkud-cmake.git w/export-set
>>> in a few minutes.
>>
>> Thanks for working on this!
>>
>>
2012/8/20 David Cole :
> Call for CMake developers! Please adopt one or more of these bugs if you
> can.
>
> The following 11 bugs are on the CMake 2.8.10 roadmap, but they are
> UNASSIGNED. They do not have anybody actively working on them at the moment.
>
> ...
> http://public.kitware.com/Bug
2012/8/20 Rolf Eike Beer :
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Stephen Kelly writes:
>> > Brad King wrote:
>> > >> I have pushed a std-cxx-target-property branch to my gitorious repo to
>> > >> illustrate the idea further, but I don't think there is any way to
>> > >> specify which c++ standard to restrict
2012/6/14 Daniel Pfeifer :
> 2012/6/14 David Cole :
>> Sounds awesome to me!
>>
>> When can you submit a patch? :-)
>>
>
> Thanks for the motivation! While I would like to contribute a patch, I
> have absolutely no idea where to start.
> Should
ectly to the generator(s)?
Given that the required changes are probably very small (the
implementation that I linked above is less than 100 lines of CMake
code), it is maybe more effort for you to get me started than it is to
implement it... :-)
cheers, Daniel
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:36
Hi,
In a private mailing with Dave Abrahams and Brad King I wrote a
proposal of how I imagine PCH support should be implemented. Brad
asked me to send it to this list for further discussion.
Please note that even though I use present tense in the proposal,
nothing descibed below is implemented yet
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
