Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Pfeifer
2014-06-15 22:24 GMT+02:00 Stephen Kelly : > 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. > > Ge

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-15 Thread Stephen Kelly
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

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-13 Thread Brad King
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" Instal

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-13 Thread Stephen Kelly
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

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Ben Boeckel
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... XX

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Brad King
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 populate

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Ben Boeckel
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 w

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Bill Hoffman
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 r

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Stephen Kelly
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

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-10 Thread Stephen Kelly
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

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-09 Thread Ben Boeckel
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 p

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-09 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 07:46:42 -0400, David Cole wrote: > Ben, can you provide a script that assumes nothing but a CMake install > to download a project and demonstrate the problem? Attached. Run as: ./test-cmake.sh [...] the first argument defaults to /usr. All of my tests are done with

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-09 Thread David Cole
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 it to be? Ben, can y

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-09 Thread Stephen Kelly
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: http://www

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler features/extensions remaining/future issues

2014-06-08 Thread Ben Boeckel
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. 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, eve