On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:12:46PM -0500, John Drescher wrote:
> > I find it to work very well. What trouble are you having with it? I have
> > never had a problem with it, and it does save time.
> >
> Bill,
> Sorry, I take that back, I just checked and I no longer have it
> disabled in either o
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 12/9/2010 12:32 PM, John Drescher wrote:
>>>
>>> Haven't been following this thread closely, but changing the handling of
>>> /INCREMENTAL is a pain, at least in VS 2005 and 2008. Here is some code
>>> we use to *disable* /INCREMENTAL. With
On 12/9/2010 12:32 PM, John Drescher wrote:
Haven't been following this thread closely, but changing the handling of
/INCREMENTAL is a pain, at least in VS 2005 and 2008. Here is some code
we use to *disable* /INCREMENTAL. With a little creativity, you could
probably use this to forcibly *enable*
> Haven't been following this thread closely, but changing the handling of
> /INCREMENTAL is a pain, at least in VS 2005 and 2008. Here is some code
> we use to *disable* /INCREMENTAL. With a little creativity, you could
> probably use this to forcibly *enable* /INCREMENTAL :):
>
Thanks. I look in
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:44:15AM -0500, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 12/9/2010 5:26 AM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
>> Thanks Bill for the trick.
>>
>> Unfortunately this works only for exe targets.
>> It doesn't work for dll's. Moreover, before the link command there is
>> this output: "Visual Studio No
On 12/9/2010 5:26 AM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Thanks Bill for the trick.
Unfortunately this works only for exe targets.
It doesn't work for dll's. Moreover, before the link command there is
this output: "Visual Studio Non-Incremental Link"
If it says that then the /INCREMENTAL flag is not being
Thanks Bill for the trick.
Unfortunately this works only for exe targets.
It doesn't work for dll's. Moreover, before the link command there is this
output: "Visual Studio Non-Incremental Link"
Below you have the verbose build output (regardless if it's the first, 2nd,
etc). Maybe this helps.
Li
On 12/8/2010 10:18 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
On 12/8/2010 4:21 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Yes I did. That is why I am wrote this post. Regardless of previous
build. I always get:
LINK : examples.exe not found or not built by the last incremental
link; performing full link
Try a make VERBOSE=1
On 12/8/2010 4:21 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Yes I did. That is why I am wrote this post. Regardless of previous
build. I always get:
LINK : examples.exe not found or not built by the last incremental
link; performing full link
Try a make VERBOSE=1 with the /incremental:yes on, and post the r
Yes I did. That is why I am wrote this post. Regardless of previous
build. I always get:
LINK : examples.exe not found or not built by the last incremental
link; performing full link
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM, John Drescher wrote:
>> Providing /INCREMENTAL:YES VS2010 linker complains that
> Providing /INCREMENTAL:YES VS2010 linker complains that this is
> deprecated and still does a FULL link.
>
This is normal behavior in Visual Studio for the first build since
there was no previous full. Did you try modifying a file after it
built and building again without cleaning?
John
see inline
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 2:28 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
>>
>> What does "Visual Studio Non-Incremental Link" mean in the below output?
>> In the link command below you can see the /INCREMENTAL /DUMMY options.
>> I explicitly added them now bu
On 12/8/2010 2:28 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
What does "Visual Studio Non-Incremental Link" mean in the below output?
In the link command below you can see the /INCREMENTAL /DUMMY options.
I explicitly added them now but still the same behaviour:
It means what it says. It means it is doing a n
What does "Visual Studio Non-Incremental Link" mean in the below output?
In the link command below you can see the /INCREMENTAL /DUMMY options.
I explicitly added them now but still the same behaviour:
What can it be the problem that I still get:
LINK : updtestdriver.exe not found or not built by
On 12/8/2010 1:49 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:53 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Hi Bill,
First just by running "cmake -E vs_link_exe" CMake crashes on my
machine (CMake 2.8.2, Win7): "cmake.exe stopped working" "Close the
progr
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 12:53 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> First just by running "cmake -E vs_link_exe" CMake crashes on my
>> machine (CMake 2.8.2, Win7): "cmake.exe stopped working" "Close the
>> program/Debug the program". Is this t
On 12/8/2010 12:53 PM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Hi Bill,
First just by running "cmake -E vs_link_exe" CMake crashes on my
machine (CMake 2.8.2, Win7): "cmake.exe stopped working" "Close the
program/Debug the program". Is this the right behaviour?
It is not meant to be a command that is called by
Hi Bill,
First just by running "cmake -E vs_link_exe" CMake crashes on my
machine (CMake 2.8.2, Win7): "cmake.exe stopped working" "Close the
program/Debug the program". Is this the right behaviour?
Then, below is my verbose output. I see no /INCREMENTAL:YES in my link
command. How did you get th
On 12/8/2010 10:36 AM, Gabriel Petrovay wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have some experience with the NMake generator and with
incremental linking. There seems to be a bug in CMake. Currently NMake
generator seems to generate build files that are not compatible with
incremental linking of libraries.
I p
Hi,
Does anyone have some experience with the NMake generator and with
incremental linking. There seems to be a bug in CMake. Currently NMake
generator seems to generate build files that are not compatible with
incremental linking of libraries.
I posted the details here:
http://www.cmake.org/pipe
20 matches
Mail list logo
