Brandon Van Every wrote:
Anyone get the feeling that this debate would go away if the burden of
proof was raised to the level of demonstrating safety under a gigantic
test suite covering all weird options? If such a suite existed, then
Rob could tweak CMake as he likes and then run the tests, rather than
speculating on what's "pointless." As much as I'd like the cleanest,
most standard output directories possible, this whole conversation
invokes a real sinking feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
What I'd personally like is some standard ways to get at *.obj
locations so that I can fake convenience libraries. I have working
code in the Chicken Scheme build that's doing it, for a few months
now. But, it's dependent on magic knowledge about where the *.obj
files will end up, not a standard interface. To take a step back...
CMake does have a test suite that checks for most of this stuff. My
guess is that if you made that change something would fail. But if it
did not fail, that would not mean that it would not cause a problem,
just that we did not yet create the test for the problem.
-Bill
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
