Am Dienstag, 9. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> First, I would like to make sure we get the ProcessorCount module
> reasonably correct on all the platforms that the CMake community cares
> about.
When we could use SystemInformation, why duplicate this? I don't think this
module should go int
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:45 AM, David Cole wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>> On 11/8/2010 3:30 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb Bill Hoffman:
On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>
> Am Montag, 8. November
On Tuesday 09 November 2010, David Cole wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bill Hoffman
wrote:
> > On 11/8/2010 3:30 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> >> Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb Bill Hoffman:
> >>> On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 11/8/2010 3:30 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>>
>> Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb Bill Hoffman:
>>>
>>> On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> C
On 11/8/2010 3:30 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb Bill Hoffman:
On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
Hi Rolf,
Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
morning on a QNX machine?
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb Bill Hoffman:
> On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> >> Hi Rolf,
> >>
> >> Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
> >> morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch,
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> I'm leaving that output in there on purpose to see what happens on all of
> our dashboard machines. I will not eliminate this extraneous output until
> later.
>
> But, don't worry, this will not be merged to master until all the
> extraneous output
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> If they're really "cluttering" your output, then you're calling it too
> much. You should only have to call this function once at the top level,
> and just use the result from then on.
I'm currently not calling it at all since there is no version s
On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
Hi Rolf,
Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch, thank you for that...)
Still needs some tweak, as the output is:
getco
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
> morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch, thank you for that...)
Still needs some tweak, as the output is:
getconf: Can't find _NPROCESSORS_ONLN
Process
2010/11/8 David Cole :
> FYI:
> The output that you see, both directly from ProcessorCount.cmake, and
> indirectly from the tools that it calls to try to determine the processor
> count, will be eliminated shortly (over the next few days)... but for now...
> it is being left in for "dashboard diagn
Am Montag, 8. November 2010 schrieb David Cole:
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
> morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch, thank you for that...)
>
> http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=680ca4baab85cbc1be98bcfd
> 81b7e4
FYI:
The output that you see, both directly from ProcessorCount.cmake, and
indirectly from the tools that it calls to try to determine the processor
count, will be eliminated shortly (over the next few days)... but for now...
it is being left in for "dashboard diagnostics" so that I can see what i
Hi Rolf,
Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch, thank you for that...)
http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=680ca4baab85cbc1be98bcfd81b7e4402ffa8d84
We are supposed to have a continuous and a nightly
I will keep going with this on Monday
It was my intent to make the test fail last night on platforms where
we could not determine the processor count, so we'd get a good sense
of how much work remains for the platforms not yet accounted for. But
I messed up the test a bit.
I'll correct that,
I feel like I'm taking the position the great Greg KH has in Linux kernel
development: the maintainer of crap. You write it "QNX" but you speak it
"crap". Don't get me wrong, I hate this stuff. But I have to deal with it so I
want CMake work there properly to reduce my pain.
So here is a fix fo
16 matches
Mail list logo
