I certainly wouldn't mind though I'm not sure what that means.
Do the changes in "next" still potentially make it into 2.8.10?
Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
I've tried to run all tests successfully before submitting but I can't
tell if any of those were called "BootstrapTest".
Is there anything special required to run it?
Nils
On 10/16/2012 02:49 PM, David Cole wrote:
I had to do this to get the bootstrap version of CMake to work (and
the BootstrapTest to pass):
$ git diff
diff --git a/Source/CMakeLists.txt b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
index 9d46355..8bf6c40 100644
--- a/Source/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -264,8 +264,6 @@ set(SRCS
cmTarget.cxx
cmTarget.h
cmTargetExport.h
- cmTimestamp.h
- cmTimestamp.cxx
cmTest.cxx
cmTest.h
cmTestGenerator.cxx
diff --git a/Source/cmBootstrapCommands.cxx b/Source/cmBootstrapCommands.cxx
index 9097a74..e3a2ad4 100644
--- a/Source/cmBootstrapCommands.cxx
+++ b/Source/cmBootstrapCommands.cxx
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@
#include "cmStringCommand.cxx"
#include "cmSubdirCommand.cxx"
#include "cmTargetLinkLibrariesCommand.cxx"
+#include "cmTimestamp.cxx"
#include "cmTryCompileCommand.cxx"
#include "cmTryRunCommand.cxx"
#include "cmUnsetCommand.cxx"
After amending this, I'll push to next later today.... unless somebody
objects to this??
Thanks,
David
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Nils Gladitz <glad...@sci-vis.de> wrote:
I've updated the patch (attached) to return empty string on failure.
I also tried to use the time definitions from global namespace rather than
std::.
Nils
On 10/05/2012 09:17 PM, Brad King wrote:
On 10/05/2012 02:53 PM, Nils Gladitz wrote:
My initial thought was that "NOTFOUND" would be a good idea since it
evaluates to false and the get_*_property commands also seem to use it.
I wrote the more general "get_property" command to replace those and
the newer command uses empty string rather than NOTFOUND. It is more
useful when computing pieces of a string to put together, perhaps when
appending to a property value.
Looking at the documentation for "if()" again only "-NOTFOUND" as a
suffix should evaluate to false though (I assume the documentation is
incomplete here?).
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Fixed:
http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=f63304d9
On second though relying on timestamps to evaluate to false on failure
is probably a bad idea since I could have a format string of e.g. "%w"
(day of the week) which might produce a valid timestamp "0" which would
also evaluate to false.
Yes, so a comparison against "" would be more reliable.
Thanks,
-Brad
--
Nils Gladitz, B.Sc.
DICOM, Konnektivität und Entwicklung
Scivis wissenschaftliche Bildverarbeitung GmbH
Bertha-von-Suttner-Str. 5
D-37085 Göttingen
GERMANY
Handelsregister Nr. / Trade Register No. B3100 Göttingen
Geschäftsführer / Managing Directors Dr. Gernot Ebel, Dr. Uwe Engeland
Tel: 0049 (0)551 634181-28
E-Mail: glad...@scivis.de
Web: www.scivis.de
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
--
Nils Gladitz, B.Sc.
DICOM, Konnektivität und Entwicklung
Scivis wissenschaftliche Bildverarbeitung GmbH
Bertha-von-Suttner-Str. 5
D-37085 Göttingen
GERMANY
Handelsregister Nr. / Trade Register No. B3100 Göttingen
Geschäftsführer / Managing Directors Dr. Gernot Ebel, Dr. Uwe Engeland
Tel: 0049 (0)551 634181-28
E-Mail: glad...@scivis.de
Web: www.scivis.de
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
