On 02/04/14 19:13, John Cowan wrote: > Peter Bex scripsit: > >> This looks very useful indeed. Is the documentation for CMake better >> nowadays? I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake, >> because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain >> the build. > That was part of it. In addition, CMake was unstable -- we were > constantly changing our build process to cope with new and incompatible > versions of CMake (also a problem with autotools) -- and it wasn't truly > able to cope with our meta-circular build process, and that had to be > kludged around. IMO, depending on GNU make only is the Right Thing for > us: it is rock solid, and if we have to deal with each port separately > to some degree, so what? There are not hundreds of targets these days > that are of practical interest. We use CMake for moderately complex project with heavy mix of Chicken, C and various external dependencies. Transition from Make was pain but I can't remember major problems with the setup. On the plus side, once you have custom modules for hard parts the usage for not initiated is quite straightforward. Cross-compilation and keeping few build configurations around is much easier. I'm not proposing reconsidering CMake for building Chicken itself, just sharing experience. Maybe I'll try to look into this. > What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support > and just compiling everything with a batch file? One thing I note is > that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do we have dependencies on post-C89 > syntax either in Chicken itself (which presumably could be worked around) > or in the generated code? This may actually simplify things for distribution tarballs, but dropping build system altogether might bring major pain for developers of the Chicken itself.
-- Regards, Oleg _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
