[cmake-developers] Fwd: cmVisualStudio10TargetGenerator should not generate a rule for an ImportLibrary for executables

Please consider the following patch for inclusion in cmake. The problem is that when a project contains a FOO.DLL and a FOO.EXE, the cmake generator tries to build FOO.LIB for both. The FOO.EXE does not need a FOO.LIB. $ diff -urp CMake-3.7.0-orig/ CMake-3.7.0 Only in CMake-3.7.0: build diff

Re: [cmake-developers] Questions about C++ version and third party libraries

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, mateusz janek wrote: > Hello CMake community, > > First of all, I want to say "Hello" to everyone, I am new to the CMake > developers community. > Hello and welcome! > I have some questions about developing rules, before I'll start to

Re: [cmake-developers] QtSDK integration

Hello all!Anybody known where Brad King?Or anybody can help me to review and merge !280, !281 and !282 MRs into 'next' for testing?7:04, 17 november 2016 г., Konstantin Podsvirov :Hi, dear CMake developers! Some of us actively using the Qt technology, but remain fans of

Re: [cmake-developers] Fwd: cmVisualStudio10TargetGenerator should not generate a rule for an ImportLibrary for executables

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Lode Leroy wrote: > Please consider the following patch for inclusion in cmake. > > The problem is that when a project contains a FOO.DLL and a FOO.EXE, > the cmake generator tries to build FOO.LIB for both. > The FOO.EXE does not need a

Re: [cmake-developers] Fwd: cmVisualStudio10TargetGenerator should not generate a rule for an ImportLibrary for executables

On 11/28/2016 09:16 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Lode Leroy wrote: >> The problem is that when a project contains a FOO.DLL and a FOO.EXE, >> the cmake generator tries to build FOO.LIB for both. >> The FOO.EXE does not need a FOO.LIB. > Please see

[cmake-developers] GitLab speed

Hello all, While I appreciate having an integrated workflow and well defined contributing rules is useful for CMake I am finding it hard to get used to GitLab. The main reason is speed. Creating merge requests, moving around the interface and even pushing to repos seems to be much slower than

Re: [cmake-developers] QtAutogen suggestions

On 11/25/2016 05:37 PM, Sebastian Holtermann wrote: > There are some issues with QtAutogen that still bother me and > that I would like to change. Great! We currently have no dedicated maintainer for it and I have little understanding of the tools and use cases associated with it myself. It

Re: [cmake-developers] C++11/C++14 doesn't work in check_cxx_source_compiles

On 11/24/2016 01:43 PM, Roman Wüger wrote: > Shouldn't this be done by CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD? Yes, this is a known problem with try_compile. It needs to learn to honor the CMAKE__STANDARD. CMake itself works around this problem in some cases, e.g. *

Re: [cmake-developers] QtAutogen suggestions

Am 28.11.2016 um 15:57 schrieb Brad King: > On 11/25/2016 05:37 PM, Sebastian Holtermann wrote: >> There are some issues with QtAutogen that still bother me and >> that I would like to change. > > Great! We currently have no dedicated maintainer for it and I have > little understanding of the

Re: [cmake-developers] QtAutogen suggestions

Am 28.11.2016 um 17:00 schrieb Brad King: > On 11/28/2016 10:25 AM, Sebastian Holtermann wrote: >> I'm going ahead then. > > Thanks. BTW, please sign up for a gitlab.kitware.com account > (optionally via GitHub OAuth) so that we can include you in > discussion of related issues. For example:

Re: [cmake-developers] QtAutogen suggestions

On 11/28/2016 10:25 AM, Sebastian Holtermann wrote: > I'm going ahead then. Thanks. BTW, please sign up for a gitlab.kitware.com account (optionally via GitHub OAuth) so that we can include you in discussion of related issues. For example: * https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/issues/16460

Re: [cmake-developers] QtSDK integration

On 11/28/2016 08:49 AM, Konstantin Podsvirov wrote: > Anybody known where Brad King? > > Or anybody can help me to review and merge !280, !281 and !282 MRs > into 'next' for testing? I was on vacation for the US Thanksgiving holiday. I'll get to these when I can. Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by

Re: [cmake-developers] GitLab speed

On 11/28/2016 02:27 PM, Harry Mallon wrote: > moving around the interface and even pushing to repos seems to be > much slower than the equivalent thing on github. Has it only been today or the last few days that you've noticed this? It does feel slower today than usual. I'll check with our

Re: [cmake-developers] QtSDK integration

Well, thank you Brad!22:14, 28 november 2016 г., Brad King :On 11/28/2016 08:49 AM, Konstantin Podsvirov wrote: Anybody known where Brad King? Or anybody can help me to review and merge !280, !281 and !282 MRs into 'next' for testing?I was on vacation for the US Thanksgiving