Brad King wrote: > On 03/12/2013 06:30 PM, Brad King wrote: >> On 03/12/2013 06:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: >>> My AutomocFixWithoutQt branch basically reverts the first commit, so >>> automoc is now again only one step, without the temporary vector of >>> targets, without needing additional checks. In this form the case that >>> Qt was not present was already handled correctly. >>> So with your fix and without Stephens first commit (79568f95) everything >>> would have been fine already. >> >> ...except that the test case added by his patch then fails. >> The test case covers exactly the header-only case. I actually did this >> approach first. That's why I rebased and cleaned up your topic. Then >> I found the remaining test failure and switched to Stephen's approach. >> >>> So my first patch in the branch basically reverts 79568f95. >> >> Yes, I cleaned up the commit message to explain what is actually reverted >> and what is not. However, see the discussion of GetIncludeDirectories: >> >> http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=79568f95 >> >> I think the two steps are needed to make that work. Stephen? > > Steve, we need the two-step automoc so that linked targets are > available for GetIncludeDirectories, right?
Yes, that's right. > Can you and Alex agree that fix-automoc-no-qt is sufficient for > the upcoming release? I agree that it is sufficient. I think Alex' objection is only related to thinking that the case of a header-only-library-with-automoc-generated-cxx-file should be an error. Thanks, Steve. -- 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
