2014-06-15 22:24 GMT+02:00 Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com:
Brad King wrote:
On 06/13/2014 05:19 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
11) WriteCompilerDetectionHeader vs GenerateExportHeader
IMO these two modules are solving orthogonal problems and should not
be mixed.
I'm not sure I agree.
Brad King wrote:
On 06/13/2014 05:19 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
11) WriteCompilerDetectionHeader vs GenerateExportHeader
IMO these two modules are solving orthogonal problems and should not
be mixed.
I'm not sure I agree.
GenerateExportHeader needs to know about deprecation in order to
Stephen Kelly wrote:
Here is a dump of some notes I have accumulated regarding compile
features.
Just a few more:
10) WriteCompilerDetectionHeader content size
Already, with only two compilers supported, the header generated by
WriteCompilerDetectionHeader is quite large when generating
On 06/13/2014 05:19 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
However, that would mean requiring the user to install multiple files rather
than just one. So, it might make sense to add a new signature
write_compiler_detection_header(
DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/compiler_detection
Installing
David Cole wrote:
I'm seeing considerable performance impact of this feature, even
when it
isn't used:
Can you create an sscce?
Sounds like just downloading ParaView, ITK or Slicer, and configuring
it with CMake is the reproduce case. How much simpler and more
stand-alone do you want
Stephen Kelly wrote:
Here is a dump of some notes I have accumulated regarding compile
features.
Any comments on the rest of this?
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Kitware offers
On 6/10/2014 11:30 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I think
http://sscce.org/
explains is quite well.
I want to avoid having to understand all of the ParaView CMake code and that
of its dependencies, and whether python bindings need to be enabled etc.
The real problem is that we need to have some
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 17:30:24 +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I want to avoid having to understand all of the ParaView CMake code and that
of its dependencies, and whether python bindings need to be enabled etc.
Well, there isn't much you need to grok from the code there; it's just a
project
On 06/10/2014 12:09 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Stephen Kelly wrote:
Here is a dump of some notes I have accumulated regarding compile
features.
Any comments on the rest of this?
Someday perhaps ;)
My main concern beyond the performance side right now is getting the
features populated for
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 13:17:57 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Will do. Should be done in an hour or two. I'm using commits b56a9ae (before)
and 593b69c (after):
Attached.
--Ben
Running cmake build after-features from cmake-after-features...
Running tests for paraview...
Running make test 1...
Ben Boeckel wrote:
I'm seeing considerable performance impact of this feature, even when it
isn't used:
Can you create an sscce?
Are there many static libraries involved?
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 07:46:42 -0400, David Cole wrote:
Can you create an sscce?
Not really. The wall time impact is only really visible on sizeable
projects and the jitter in the time can be masked in smaller projects.
The smallest you're probably going to get is VTK without searching for
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 15:17:59 +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Here is a dump of some notes I have accumulated regarding compile features.
snip
I haven't read this thoroughly, just enough to see that this item is
missing:
9) Performance
I'm seeing considerable performance impact of this feature,
Hi,
Here is a dump of some notes I have accumulated regarding compile features.
1) Extensions requiring compile options
The target_compile_features interface is designed to allow use with compiler
extensions such as gnu_cxx_typeof and msvc_cxx_sealed. The extensions
discussed so far have
14 matches
Mail list logo
