Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Bug fix requests for the *next* release of CMake...

2010-07-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 05 July 2010, David Cole wrote: Hi all, Now that we have released CMake 2.8.2 last Monday, and we have switched to this new workflow using branches in the git repository, *now* would be a great time to prioritize bug fixes for the next release of CMake. We are leaning towards

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Support for multiple components in cpack

2010-08-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 06 August 2010, Eric Noulard wrote: 2010/8/6 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: On Friday 06 August 2010, Eric Noulard wrote: ... I think I missed the fact that you did not used component GROUPS at all in the first place :-) Sorry I didn't follow closely... What

Re: [cmake-developers] Is GET_OPTION_VALUE() a good name ?

2010-08-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 09 August 2010, Brad King wrote: On 08/07/2010 03:41 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: # Call the function, if the keyword is present the value(s) following it will # be returned in _FAIL_MESSAFE/_VERSION_VAR/_REQUIRED_VARS: FPHSA_GET_OPTION_VALUE(FAIL_MESSAGE _FAIL_MESSAGE ALL_ARGS

Re: [cmake-developers] fphsa capitalization

2010-08-10 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 10 August 2010, Brad King wrote: On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: diff --git a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake index 58a179d..30220d1 100644 --- a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake +++ b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake @@ -2,7 +2,12

Re: [cmake-developers] fphsa capitalization

2010-08-14 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 14 August 2010, you wrote: ... find_package command, it makes a lot of sense to use that same exact-case name as a prefix for the variables set by that find module. My hope is that with the conversion pain removed, I'm afraid this wouldn't remove my personal (KDE's) conversion

Re: [cmake-developers] CMake code style

2010-09-21 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Alan W. Irwin wrote: On 2010-09-20 16:20-0400 Bill Hoffman wrote: BTW, this type of code is not allowed in CMake: if (fi!=files.begin()) os ;; Needs to be: if((fi!=files.begin()) { os ;; } If you want a consistent coding style in CMake, I

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 23 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 15 September 2010, David Cole wrote: I am happy to announce that CMake 2.8.3 has entered the release candidate stage! You can find the source and binaries here: http://www.cmake.org/files/v2.8/?C=M;O=D Following

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 23 September 2010, Clinton Stimpson wrote: On Thursday, September 23, 2010 01:40:02 pm Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... This was committed here: http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=b55da4c688bbf55b442908 46 4e0f7e2e41c937a3 which has as commit message Add cross

[cmake-developers] What to do with the RESOLVED issues ?

2010-09-25 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, there are currently 169 RESOLVED issues for cmake: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view_all_bug_page.php?filter=40216 Should they all just be changed to CLOSED ? Alex ___ cmake-developers mailing list cmake-developers@cmake.org

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-26 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 25 September 2010, Eric Noulard wrote: 2010/9/25 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: [..] The other option would be to make sure that INCLUDE(FindPackageHandleStandardArgs) when used in cmake's own module would always load FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake from cmake, i.e

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-26 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 26 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Saturday 25 September 2010, Eric Noulard wrote: 2010/9/25 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: [..] The other option would be to make sure that INCLUDE(FindPackageHandleStandardArgs) when used in cmake's own module would

[cmake-developers] Creating cdash subprojects: create_cdash_subprojects()

2010-09-26 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, I'd like to set up subprojects for KDE, but I think this is right now not feasible because it needs too much manual work: when setting up subprojects for cdash, somebody has to write a Project.xml: Project name=”Tutorial” SubProject name=”Libs” /SubProject SubProject name=”Exes”

Re: [cmake-developers] What to do with the RESOLVED issues ?

2010-09-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, David Cole wrote: When I fix a bug, I mark it as resolved. I expect that somebody else who cares about the bug will come along behind me and double-check me on it. So... I leave it to the reporter or some other interested party to close it. If there is

Re: [cmake-developers] Creating cdash subprojects: create_cdash_subprojects()

2010-09-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, David Cole wrote: Ambitious. I like it. I would prefer seeing this implemented as a CMake-language function. And You mean to implement this as a cmake script, and not as a built-in function ? adding anything necessary to CMake in order to support implementing it

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Brad King wrote: On 09/28/2010 03:24 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Currently there are CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_FILE and CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_LINE. Should it be CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_FILE_DIR or CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR ? Let's use the latter, CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... Another option would be that I check in KDE/FPHSA.cmake CMAKE_PARENT_LIST_FILE to see whether KDE/FPHSA.cmake is included from a module in cmake or in KDE, and if it's in CMake, forward that explicitely to CMake/FPHSA.cmake

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!

2010-09-29 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Brad King wrote: On 09/28/2010 05:20 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 28 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Is this intended this way ? The attached tiny patch seems to make CMAKE_PARENT_LIST_FILE work more like I expected. Yes, but who

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling [was CMake 2.8.3-rc1 ready for testing!]

2010-09-30 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 29 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... I have some thoughts, but it's not completely clear yet. Somehow I think if a file is include()d from CMAKE_MODULE_PATH, CMAKE_MODULE_PATH should be considered when it does its own include()s. If it's not included via

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 05 October 2010, James Bigler wrote: On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: ... The current behaviour is really like running an executable with a shared library LD_PRELOADED, and hoping that the LD_PRELOADED libs will always be work

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 08 October 2010, David Cole wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.orgwrote: ... Better idea: I'll add a policy which switches this behaviour (prefer CMAKE_ROOT over CMAKE_MODULE_PATH when used from within CMAKE_ROOT), and this policy

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 08 October 2010, you wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.orgwrote: ... Better idea: I'll add a policy which switches this behaviour (prefer CMAKE_ROOT over CMAKE_MODULE_PATH when used from within CMAKE_ROOT), and this policy will, as all

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-10 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 08 October 2010, David Cole wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.orgwrote: ... Better idea: I'll add a policy which switches this behaviour (prefer CMAKE_ROOT over CMAKE_MODULE_PATH when used from within CMAKE_ROOT), and this policy

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-11 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 11 October 2010, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: On Sunday 10 October 2010 14:56:29 Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... So is there no chance of fixing this in a backward compatible way? One of Prefering module in CMAKE_ROOT when include() or find_package() is called from CMAKE_ROOT (which does

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.orgwrote: ... Personally, I would try a rc3 with CMP0017 set to NEW and see how it goes. It works for kdelibs and for our project at work (which doesn't have a lot

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: 2010/10/12 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: ... Personally, I would try a rc3 with CMP0017 set

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Alan W. Irwin wrote: ... cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.3 FATAL_ERROR) because you absolutely need CMP0017. I believe most projects (including PLplot) will eventually need that policy as well because there is a tendency to copy and modify CMake find modules to

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote: Remaining are as far as I see: -set new policy CMP0017 to NEW by default Projects with an exotic setup may break, but that's probably better than breaking all KDE 4.5.0/1 builds. One could also argue that these projects relied on internal

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, David Cole wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Brad King brad.k...@kitware.com wrote: ... releases and will get us through this CMake rc cycle safely. Future enhancements to FPHSA2 may need yet another new module, but I think that is in the nature of this

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Brad King wrote: On 10/12/2010 03:32 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote: Anyway, in the short term, we are going to go with FPHSA2, Alex do you have time to do that? FPHSA2 would have been my last choice

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote: So, I think we have to use the new name approach. Do we want to call it 2? Or should we call it something else? Alex, do you have time to do this? I think it's not a good solution, and the one with CURRENT_LIST_DIR is definitely better and

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... Adding FPHSA2.cmake now in 2.8.3 is safe now, but not as soon as new features are added to it in 2.8.4 or later versions. Projects will have copies of it and it can break just the same way then. Example: assume projects will take

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-10-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Brad King wrote: ... Currently projects have the option to override it with CMAKE_MODULE_PATH to providing a module with the same API but a tweaked implementation. With the CURRENT_LIST_DIR approach

[cmake-developers] Add support for IAR compilers

2010-10-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, basically since January this year I am busy with adding support for the IAR compilers to cmake: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10176 Main problem is that they run only under Windows, I don't have Windows, and I also already tried to get them installed on a ReactOS QEmu image,

Re: [cmake-developers] CMake platform support for TI C6000 and TMS470 (OMAP)

2010-10-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi Trevor, On Sunday 17 October 2010, Trevor Kellaway wrote: Alex, Is CMake accepting platform files for the official distro? You mean files for supporting the TI compilers ? I think so, yes. You may remember me from my original CMake 2.4 work on embedded compiler support, I'm currently

[cmake-developers] next RC ?

2010-10-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, how are the cmake RCs doing ? I didn't see an announcement for a 2.8.3 RC3, did I miss it ? (I'm waiting for it so I can announce it to the KDE developers to give it some extra testing) Alex ___ cmake-developers mailing list

Re: [cmake-developers] next RC ?

2010-10-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 27 October 2010, David Cole wrote: Yes, the rc3 was announced last week. Are you sure ? I can't find it in my emails, also neither here: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/2010-October/date.html nor here: http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-October/date.html

[cmake-developers] Improved graphviz support

2010-11-01 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, attached you can find a dependency graph for the khtmlpart in kdelibs. This graph was created using dot from a dot-file generated by cmake using the --graphviz option. This feature was a bit buggy, e.g. it ignored targets which didn't link to anything. So I spent some time on it and now

Re: [cmake-developers] Bug fix requests for the *next* release of CMake...

2010-11-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 04 November 2010, David Cole wrote: Hi all, Now that we have released CMake 2.8.3, *now* would be a great time to prioritize bug fixes for the next release of CMake. Replies requested. Read on. *Just a short reply with bug numbers* or links to the bugs is all we need here.

[cmake-developers] gitweb urls ?

2010-11-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, I'm currently playing around with ctest and git/gitweb. For our KDE nightly scripts with cvs and svn I first downloaded just the CTestConfig.cmake file and then continued. Since downloading single files is not possible with git AFAIK, I thought I'd try gitweb. Looks good so far, I just

Re: [cmake-developers] Fixing ProcessorCount.cmake

2010-11-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 09 November 2010, David Cole wrote: On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.com 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

[cmake-developers] hot to get something from stage to next or master ?

2010-11-14 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, the AddASM_NASMSupport branch (#10069) in staging is now good enough to be merged into next (or master ?). How does that happen ? Should I simply ignore staging and merge my local branch into next and push this ? Or should I ask you to merge that branch into master ? Should I try to merge

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 18 November 2010, Marcel Loose wrote: ... Hi all, I've been following this discussion with interest for quite a while. I was wondering if both worlds could be united (Alex's and David's) if it were possible to set cmake_minimum_required on the command line? That way Alex can be

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 18 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/18/2010 04:29 AM, Marcel Loose wrote: ... This entire issue is about projects using CMAKE_MODULE_PATH to override standard CMake modules (accidentally or intentionally). This policy changes the *granularity* at which that has to happen.

[cmake-developers] Using cmake pkg-config-like in non-cmake builds

2010-11-22 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, there can be the case that a package which has been built with cmake, should be used in a project which doesn't use cmake. There is a feature request that cmake should help with generating pkg-config pc-files: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11446 I don't like that idea, because

Re: [cmake-developers] Using cmake pkg-config-like in non-cmake builds

2010-11-22 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/22/2010 03:55 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: I have a slightly different idea: instead of having cmake generate pc-files, modify/extend cmake so that it can be used similar to pkg-config by projects which don't use cmake as their buildsystem

Re: [cmake-developers] Using cmake pkg-config-like in non-cmake builds

2010-11-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 22 November 2010, Alan W. Irwin wrote: On 2010-11-22 21:55+0100 Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, there can be the case that a package which has been built with cmake, should be used in a project which doesn't use cmake. There is a feature request that cmake should help

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/22/2010 04:06 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: ... I think the path forward here is: (1) Improve documentation of CMAKE_USER_MAKE_RULES_OVERRIDE[_C] variables (2) Add the Custom-* file

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-11-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 23 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/23/2010 03:31 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/22/2010 04:06 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: (1) Improve documentation

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-12-14 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 23 November 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 23 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/23/2010 03:31 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King wrote: On 11/22/2010 04:06 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 22 November 2010, Brad King

Re: [cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

2010-12-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Brad King wrote: On 12/15/2010 05:31 PM, Brad King wrote: + e CMake builtin module\n + includer \n + is including a module from the CMAKE_MODULE_PATH\n + moduleInCMakeModulePath \n + which

Re: [cmake-developers] need info regarding netware OS support

2011-01-30 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 28 January 2011, ajay bansal wrote: Hi All, I want to do build on netware platform. Please let me know whether cmake is supported netware platform ? There is an old feasture request for it: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=5028 Currently there is no support for netware in

[cmake-developers] Help needed: output of HP, IBM and Sun compilers

2011-02-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, I'm working currently on improved assembler support, should be ready for 2.8.5 (http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8392). This means I need to determine a compiler ID for the ASM compiler. Since on each architecture the asm sources are different, I can't just use a common file and

[cmake-developers] Work on the graphviz support - compatibility ?

2011-02-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, in general we keep cmake as backward compatible as possible, so no builds are broken. In a local branch I have a version of cmake with a small improvement to the graphviz support in cmake. It turns the variable GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS from a list of strings into a list of regular

Re: [cmake-developers] Help needed: output of HP, IBM and Sun compilers

2011-02-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Brad King wrote: On 02/05/2011 01:19 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, I'm working currently on improved assembler support, should be ready for 2.8.5 (http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8392). This means I need to determine a compiler ID for the ASM

Re: [cmake-developers] Work on the graphviz support - compatibility ?

2011-02-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 13 February 2011, Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/2/13 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: On Monday 07 February 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 06 February 2011, Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/2/5 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: Hi, in general we keep cmake

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-02-23 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 18 August 2010, Brad King wrote: On 08/18/2010 01:03 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: If the files are written that way (and built without cmake before), the developers want to have them processed with the actual compiler, because that's what they are always doing. IMO that's

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-02-24 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 23 February 2011, Brad King wrote: On 02/23/2011 03:36 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: This is now on stage in the ReworkedAsmSupport branch. I'd like to merge this into next, if there are no objections. It implements what we discussed here, i.e. if there is already a C/CXX

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-01 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 01 March 2011, Brad King wrote: On 03/01/2011 03:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: The SunPro tests both failed: http://www.cdash.org/CDash/testDetails.php?test=85204365build=884706 http://www.cdash.org/CDash/testDetails.php?test=85247010build=884931 The assembler file

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-03 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 01 March 2011, Brad King wrote: On 03/01/2011 04:40 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Do you think when enabling the C compiler as ASM compiler it should also check for $ENV{CFLAGS} ? Or should I added $ENV{ASMFLAGS} ? Often the C compiler is the C++ compiler too but we still have

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-03 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 03 March 2011, Brad King wrote: Hi Alex, The Sun compiler still fails: http://www.cdash.org/CDash/testDetails.php?test=85204365build=888421 It's because the execute_process in the CMakeLists.txt file of the test does not use the C compiler flags. Therefore 32-bit assembly code

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-07 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 04 March 2011, Brad King wrote: On 03/03/2011 05:04 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Thursday 03 March 2011, Brad King wrote: Hi Alex, The Sun compiler still fails: http://www.cdash.org/CDash/testDetails.php?test=85204365build=888421 It's because the execute_process

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Brad King wrote: On 03/07/2011 03:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Testing the Intel compiler under Windows... I just tried this but have no time to work further on it now. The compiler does use -S to generate assembly, but there are at least 3 problems: (1

Re: [cmake-developers] How to deal with assembler files

2011-03-10 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 09 March 2011, Brad King wrote: On 03/09/2011 02:27 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Brad King wrote: $ icl -S main.c $ icl main.asm (errors) I was able to fix the errors for (3) by replacing . with _ in a few labels. Then the build

Re: [cmake-developers] New Cmake module - Armadillo C++

2011-03-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
}/Armadillo/cmake/. It works well, thanks for the tips. Clement. On 16/03/11 19:16, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi Clement, On Wednesday 16 March 2011, creusot wrote: Hi everybody, I would like to propose a new cmake module for the Armadillo C++ library. http://arma.sourceforge.net

[cmake-developers] Fwd: [CMake] [New Module] FindDC1394.cmake

2011-03-20 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, Enrique is volunteering to maintain a new FindDC1394.cmake module, as posted on the cmake list. Did you already get in contact with him (... so I can close the ticket for me) ? Alex -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [CMake] [New Module] FindDC1394.cmake Date: Sunday 13

Re: [cmake-developers] CMake scripting mod linker language error

2011-03-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 26 March 2011, Wolfgang Steiner wrote: Hi CMake people, first off I'd like to thank the devs for such a great tool, you've done an awesome job with this project ;) I'm currently trying to do a cmake mod based on the latest Git head. Basically I'm trying to add an alternative

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, On Sunday 17 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Hi, I like to get involved offering work on the Eclipse CDT generator. Currently, the generated project setting is not very Eclipse'ish. There have been some changes in the 2.8.x versions. You have 2.8.4 ? - one large project - linear

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-19 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi Oliver, On Sunday 17 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Hi Alex, Am 17.04.2011 20:46, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: Hi, On Sunday 17 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Hi, I like to get involved offering work on the Eclipse CDT generator. Currently, the generated project

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-20 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 20 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Hi Alex, ... What would you expect there ? Some structure that gives me acces to the sources of the targets. I suppose, you try to achieve this with sub-projects, but it does not work properly in my case. How does it work not properly ?

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 25 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 20.04.2011 22:09, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: ... What would you expect there ? Some structure that gives me acces to the sources of the targets. I suppose, you try to achieve this with sub-projects, but it does not work properly

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 27 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 27.04.2011 21:28, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: On Monday 25 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 20.04.2011 22:09, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: ... What would you expect there ? Some structure that gives me acces to the sources

Re: [cmake-developers] CMAKE_ARGC and CMAKE_ARGVx

2011-04-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 28 April 2011, Nicolas Desprès wrote: 2011/4/28 David Cole david.c...@kitware.com: 2011/4/28 Nicolas Desprès nicolas.desp...@gmail.com 2011/4/27 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: On Wednesday 27 April 2011, Nicolas Desprès wrote: Hi, I'm experimenting

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-28 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 27 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Forgot to feed the list... Am 27.04.2011 22:01, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: On Friday 22 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: ... Here we go: git://github.com/oliver/cmake_cdt7.git I have intensively worked with this generator

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-29 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 28 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: ... wst-file is allright and I see that all projects are generated :) Unfortunately, this working set stuff is yet a bit inconvenient, as it is not an Eclipse built-in. What you need to do: 0. Switch to C/C++ perspective (maybe this is the

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-04-30 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 30 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 29.04.2011 21:45, schrieb Manuel Klimek: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: On Thursday 28 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: ... wst-file is allright and I see that all projects

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-05-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 27 April 2011, you wrote: Am 27.04.2011 21:28, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: On Monday 25 April 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 20.04.2011 22:09, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: ... What would you expect there ? Some structure that gives me acces to the sources

Re: [cmake-developers] Better Eclipse CDT support

2011-05-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 06 May 2011, Oliver Buchtala wrote: Am 06.05.2011 23:26, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: ... When I look around my colleagues I find basically only positive remarks about the svn support in Eclipse ;-) This is also my impression from feedback from other users about the Eclipse

[cmake-developers] Getting some stuff from KDE into cmake

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, I'm currently at the KDE Platform Sprint, where we (a bunch of KDE developers) are discussing how to move on with the KDE platform. This includes some things regarding cmake. When we introduced cmake in KDE, there were not that many other free projects using cmake, so our cmake extensions

[cmake-developers] Automoc in cmake

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, one feature which all KDE developers are used to and which is also used by qmake when building Qt is automoc. This means that you don't have to write qt4_wrap_cpp(srcs ${filesToBeMoced}) but instead you simply do kde4_add_executable(hello ${srcs}) and everything including moc is handled

[cmake-developers] Improved support for using cmake-based libraries in non-cmake projects

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, KDE is getting more modular, so instead of a few huge modules there will be much more independent libraries. We'll try to make all those libraries install proper FooConfig.cmake files. Currently most of these libraries install already pkgconfig pc-files. This means they (would) have to

[cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, again from the KDE sprint... 1) We have a macro macro_optional_find_package(). The purpose is to be able to build without a specific package even if that package is installed and would actually be found by the find_package() call. Basically this is a wrapper around find_package(), but

[cmake-developers] Creating a separate project/package which provides cmake extensions/modules

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, again from the KDE sprint... We have around 150 cmake modules in kdelibs... Several libraries are not before kdelibs, so they don't have access to those. So, what we came up with is that create a new package which just contains our cmake modules, so they can be used by non-KDE

[cmake-developers] Making _IMPORT_PREFIX from an installed exports-file available to an including file

2011-06-04 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, when installing an export-file cmake has the nice feature to calculate the CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX from the current location: -8--8--8 # Compute the installation prefix relative to this file. GET_FILENAME_COMPONENT(_IMPORT_PREFIX

Re: [cmake-developers] Making _IMPORT_PREFIX from an installed exports-file available to an including file

2011-06-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:50:12 AM Michael Wild wrote: On 06/04/2011 10:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, when installing an export-file cmake has the nice feature to calculate the CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX from the current location: ... If so, would it be ok if I move the code

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:50:50 PM Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/6/4 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: Hi, again from the KDE sprint... 1) We have a macro macro_optional_find_package(). The purpose is to be able to build without a specific package even if that package

Re: [cmake-developers] Improved support for using cmake-based libraries in non-cmake projects

2011-06-05 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:21:43 PM Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/6/4 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: Hi, KDE is getting more modular, so instead of a few huge modules there will be much more independent libraries. We'll try to make all those libraries install proper FooConfig.cmake

Re: [cmake-developers] Creating a separate project/package which provides cmake extensions/modules

2011-06-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:34:55 PM Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/6/4 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: Hi, again from the KDE sprint... We have around 150 cmake modules in kdelibs... Several libraries are not before kdelibs, so they don't have access to those. So, what we

Re: [cmake-developers] Automoc in cmake

2011-06-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:24:52 AM Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, one feature which all KDE developers are used to and which is also used by qmake when building Qt is automoc. This means that you don't have to write qt4_wrap_cpp(srcs ${filesToBeMoced}) but instead you simply do

Re: [cmake-developers] Improved support for using cmake-based libraries in non-cmake projects

2011-06-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday, June 06, 2011 03:44:20 PM Brad King wrote: On 06/05/2011 07:14 PM, Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/6/4 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: * if so, it will check that for FOO_INCLUDES and FOO_LIBRARIES * create the command line arguments for the compiler from that * print -I/opt/foo

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday, June 06, 2011 03:26:03 PM Brad King wrote: On 06/04/2011 06:30 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: What do you think about adding this as a built-in feature to find_package(), i.e. add a argument OPTIONAL to find_package(), then probably also a COMMENT. The interface to find_package

[cmake-developers] Make non-REQUIRED find_package() always disable-able Was: Re: Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-07 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, I slept over it, I think here's a better idea. For every find_package() which is not REQUIRED, some people or packagers may want to explicitely disable each one of them. So how about this: if there is no REQUIRED keyword in the find_package() call, there is always an option added which

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 02:34:06 PM Eric Noulard wrote: 2011/6/7 Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org: On Monday, June 06, 2011 03:26:03 PM Brad King wrote: On 06/04/2011 06:30 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: [...] What do you think about adding the keyword OPTIONAL

Re: [cmake-developers] Getting some stuff from KDE into cmake

2011-06-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:09:57 AM Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, I'm currently at the KDE Platform Sprint, where we (a bunch of KDE developers) are discussing how to move on with the KDE platform. This includes some things regarding cmake. When we introduced cmake in KDE, there were

Re: [cmake-developers] Automoc in cmake

2011-06-08 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday, June 06, 2011 03:37:16 PM Brad King wrote: On 06/06/2011 03:56 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:24:52 AM Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, one feature which all KDE developers are used to and which is also used by qmake when building Qt is automoc

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Nicolas Desprès wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: ... I can't think of any reason why somebody would want to use find_package(...without REQUIRED) instead of optional_find_package(). Can somebody else see a reason

Re: [cmake-developers] Automoc in cmake

2011-06-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 08 June 2011, Brad King wrote: On 6/8/2011 2:59 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: The two things are - BSD licensing, we did that 3 years ago: http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=automoc.gita=commith=78fdba1e2d96bc455125317 48ffb770cb1124798 -and porting to STL+cmsys, we did that now

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-09 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Brad King wrote: On 6/9/2011 2:58 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: This wish comes mainly from packagers, not from the developers themselves. I am sure packagers would be happy if they had one consistent way to disable every package any cmake checks

[cmake-developers] ExternalProject: using the same argument multiple times

2011-06-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi Dave, I want to wrap the externalproject_add() function, so that in the normal case only the git URL has to be specified, and all other arguments have been already set. But it should still be possible to override my default arguments. So I had a look how the argument parsing is done in

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Brad King wrote: On 6/9/2011 8:50 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... I think this can be handled. find_package() should error out in this case, because Bar was required but it was disabled. Maybe this option to disable a find_package() could even be provided

Re: [cmake-developers] Adding argument OPTIONAL to find_package() and add_subdirectory

2011-06-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 16 June 2011, Brad King wrote: On 06/16/2011 04:15 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: I'll push a branch to the stage once 2.8.5 is released. Or can I do that earlier ? You can push it any time but skip merging it. There should be a branch DisableSwitchForFindPackage now in stage

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >