Hi,
On 11.05.2009, at 19:19, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2009-05-11 13:55+0200 Arjen Markus wrote:
Hi Alan, Andrew, Werner,
it may be nothing of consequence, but when I fixed the command-line
issue with Fortran 77/95 last week, I could not find any pkg-config
file for the platforms I looked
On 2009-05-12 08:01+0200 Werner Smekal wrote:
Hi,
On 11.05.2009, at 19:19, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
However, I really do hope you and Werner explore that territory soon. Once
set up, it should be a much easier environment for you guys to work in
because everything is located in consistent
On 2009-05-12 09:01, Werner Smekal wrote:
Of course the above parallel testing considerations for both install
tree
and build tree are only relevant on Windows if there is a Windows CMake
generator that allows parallel commands to be executed similar to the GNU
make -j option.
AFAIK
Hi Alan, Andrew, Werner,
it may be nothing of consequence, but when I fixed the command-line
issue with Fortran 77/95 last week, I could not find any pkg-config
file for the platforms I looked at (notably MinGW). I may have missed
it, but I was curious whether I should do something about it, as
On 2009-05-11 13:55+0200 Arjen Markus wrote:
Hi Alan, Andrew, Werner,
it may be nothing of consequence, but when I fixed the command-line
issue with Fortran 77/95 last week, I could not find any pkg-config
file for the platforms I looked at (notably MinGW). I may have missed
it, but I was
On 2009-05-11 10:19-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
Finally, I should note that if you don't like the pkg-config approach to
deliver the build information you need in the installed examples tree there
is another good possibility which is to store the needed compile and link
information for library
On 2009-05-11 10:19-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
My attention was drawn to this possibility [of a CMake-based build of
the installed examples] recently on the CMake list so I
thought I would share it here, but I know nothing more about this then what
I read in the cmake documentation. I don't
On 2009-05-11 22:27+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
These results seem exactly consistent with my analysis. Do you confirm these
results on your own system with and without CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE being
specified?
I do, but my interpretation of the libraries after the debug is different to
yours. I think
On 2009-05-11 12:19-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2009-05-11 10:19-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
My attention was drawn to this possibility [of a CMake-based build of
the installed examples] recently on the CMake list so I
thought I would share it here, but I know nothing more about this then
On 2009-05-10 11:38+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
I don't completely trust QT_LIBRARIES_optimized because it appears to be
incomplete (see above discussion). However, I have checked with ldd -r
qt.so and ldd -r qt_example that -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release works on
Linux without any undefined
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:01:59PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
P.S. I now see you actually committed a fix to pkg-config.cmake. Since my
changes dealt with the QT_LIBRARIES issue directly, I am wondering whether
we should revert your change (because I am not quite sure whether that logic
will
On 2009-05-09 11:09+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:01:59PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
P.S. I now see you actually committed a fix to pkg-config.cmake. Since my
changes dealt with the QT_LIBRARIES issue directly, I am wondering whether
we should revert your change (because I
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:52:28PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
On 2009-05-07 21:49+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
You are probably right. What I don't understand is why it works with the
general tag (which is there even if you don't specify a build type, but
not with the optimized or debug tags.
On 2009-05-08 19:09+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:52:28PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
On 2009-05-07 21:49+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
You are probably right. What I don't understand is why it works with the
general tag (which is there even if you don't specify a build type, but
P.S. I now see you actually committed a fix to pkg-config.cmake. Since my
changes dealt with the QT_LIBRARIES issue directly, I am wondering whether
we should revert your change (because I am not quite sure whether that logic
will always work properly) or just leave it in case some other library
On 2009-05-07 10:53+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
Further to my previous report, this only seems to occur if you explicitly
set the cmake build type, e.g. with -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug. This is
probably why no-one has reported it before. Without this option the Qt library
dependencies contain no
On 2009-05-07 10:53+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
Further to my previous report, this only seems to occur if you explicitly
set the cmake build type, e.g. with -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug. This is
probably why no-one has reported it before. Without this option the Qt library
dependencies contain no
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:20:49PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
On 2009-05-07 10:53+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
Further to my previous report, this only seems to occur if you explicitly
set the cmake build type, e.g. with -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug. This is
probably why no-one has reported it before.
On 2009-05-07 21:49+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
You are probably right. What I don't understand is why it works with the
general tag (which is there even if you don't specify a build type, but
not with the optimized or debug tags.
Well remember, the likes of
19 matches
Mail list logo
