Jussi Pakkanen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens <t...@openoffice.org> wrote: > >>> functionality? Even if CMake eventually turns out to be too slow, >>> would it not make more sense to write your own custom CMake back >>> end rather than the configuration/generation front end? >>> >> I guess it's now my turn to ask for sample code here. ;) > > For a backend? No, sorry. I have never looked into that. > > But the issue raised earlier was that because CMake's Makefiles are > recursive (or something) they are too slow, probably because automake > does it this way and is slow. I personally do not think this will be > an issue. When running on Windows, the time taken by makefiles when > changing directories is insignificant compared to the time taken by > the compiler. But I have only tried it under Virtualbox and not at all > thoroughly.
The problem is not because the makefiles "are" recursive. The problem is that it looks if CMake does not offer a way to include all makefiles of the whole project (or at least larger parts of it if you think about a split build) into a single process without clashing of target names. So the only way to reuse CMake makefiles for a complete build is recursively calling them or - as we do today in OOo - serialize the process. I don't think that this is a matter of performance per se, it's just that the benefit is missing we wanted to get from the new "single make process" approach. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
