Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-12 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:46:24 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Actually... back up for a moment. Since we're talking about dynamic > libraries here (none of this applies to static I think; in that case > you must always relink), how would a non-ABI change in liba.so cause > the result of linking

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-12 Thread Bill Hoffman
On 12/12/2013 11:46 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Where template.hpp changes (testing with 2.8.12.1 shows that touching template.hpp triggers a rebuild with Ninja, but not Unix Makefiles), That sounds like a bug :-). Yes, this is a bug. ninja and make should be the same. -- Powered by www.kitwa

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-12 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2013-12-11 20:00, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 19:38:21 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I don't think this is relevant? In these cases, a header is changing, which will (hopefully) lead to the source files using that header being rebuilt, which will cause the library to relink any

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-12 Thread Stephen Kelly
Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 00:00:42 +0100, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> You opposed a sensible default for CMAKE_LINK_DEPENDS_NO_SHARED: >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/cmake-developers@cmake.org/msg06169.html >> >> I continue to consider the default value of that to be a mistak

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Bill Hoffman
On 12/11/2013 6:00 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: You opposed a sensible default for CMAKE_LINK_DEPENDS_NO_SHARED: https://www.mail-archive.com/cmake-developers@cmake.org/msg06169.html I continue to consider the default value of that to be a mistake. I am on the fence with this one. It is always b

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 19:38:21 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I don't think this is relevant? In these cases, a header is changing, > which will (hopefully) lead to the source files using that header > being rebuilt, which will cause the library to relink anyway. (And if > the sources *aren't* r

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2013-12-11 19:21, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 17:13:00 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Now, I *do* get that relinking is good if the library ABI changes. However, that's not the case here, and I am wondering if it would be possible for CMake to generate an additional, intermediar

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 17:13:00 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Now, I *do* get that relinking is good if the library ABI changes. > However, that's not the case here, and I am wondering if it would be > possible for CMake to generate an additional, intermediary step after > library linking to som

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2013-12-11 17:13, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I've been working on a project lately that isn't *that* massively large, but has an unusually high number of library and executable targets. One thing that's been bugging me is that any trivial change in a "lower level" library causes more than a hundre

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 17:40:08 -0500, Bill Hoffman wrote: > The other option sounds interesting but hard to implement in a cross > platform manner. Maybe an option to use this[1] tool would be useful? --Ben [1]http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker -- Powered by www.kitw

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 00:00:42 +0100, Stephen Kelly wrote: > You opposed a sensible default for CMAKE_LINK_DEPENDS_NO_SHARED: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/cmake-developers@cmake.org/msg06169.html > > I continue to consider the default value of that to be a mistake. How would a relink be f

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2013-12-11 17:40, Bill Hoffman wrote: On 12/11/2013 5:13 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I've been working on a project lately that isn't *that* massively large, but has an unusually high number of library and executable targets. One thing that's been bugging me is that any trivial change in a "lo

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Stephen Kelly
Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I've been working on a project lately that isn't *that* massively large, > but has an unusually high number of library and executable targets. One > thing that's been bugging me is that any trivial change in a "lower > level" library causes more than a hundred targets to b

Re: [cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Bill Hoffman
On 12/11/2013 5:13 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I've been working on a project lately that isn't *that* massively large, but has an unusually high number of library and executable targets. One thing that's been bugging me is that any trivial change in a "lower level" library causes more than a hund

[cmake-developers] cmake build does too much work

2013-12-11 Thread Matthew Woehlke
I've been working on a project lately that isn't *that* massively large, but has an unusually high number of library and executable targets. One thing that's been bugging me is that any trivial change in a "lower level" library causes more than a hundred targets to be relinked, for no good reas