Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

You're welcome. I decided to wait till the dashboard cleans up again
before merging this topic, but it should be in the next few days.

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Let me know if there is anything else I can do.
>
> Nils
>
>
> On 10/31/2012 09:52 PM, David Cole wrote:
>
> Has anybody tried this anywhere else? I'm going to merge it to 'next'
> tomorrow, so that it will get tested on the dashboards after that. Just
> curious if there are any other known problems with it that I should squash
> in before doing that...
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, David Cole  wrote:
>>
>> I have amended the commit and pushed this branch to the stage. If
>> anybody else would like to try it out they can grab the
>> "add-timestamp-subcommands" branch from the CMake stage repo.
>>
>> I did not merge it to 'next' yet, but I will do that when we're ready
>> to get it tested on the dashboards.
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this Nils.
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
>> > Ah that might explain it ... I may have been using nmake on Windows and
>> > ninja on linux.
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Nils
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, David Cole wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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?
>> >>>
>> >> Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards, and then
>> >> later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.
>> >>
>> >> After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake release
>> >> that follows that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
>> >>>
>> >> We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
>> >> that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other platform test
>> >> failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into 'master' until
>> >> after 2.8.10.
>> >>
>> >> We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
>> >> after we start doing release candidates.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> 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?
>> >>>
>> >> The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based builds, so
>> >> if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
>> >> test.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> 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 
>>  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 onl

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

Thanks!

Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

Nils

On 10/31/2012 09:52 PM, David Cole wrote:
Has anybody tried this anywhere else? I'm going to merge it to 'next' 
tomorrow, so that it will get tested on the dashboards after that. 
Just curious if there are any other known problems with it that I 
should squash in before doing that...


Thanks,
David



On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, David Cole > wrote:


I have amended the commit and pushed this branch to the stage. If
anybody else would like to try it out they can grab the
"add-timestamp-subcommands" branch from the CMake stage repo.

I did not merge it to 'next' yet, but I will do that when we're ready
to get it tested on the dashboards.

Thanks for your work on this Nils.


David


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Nils Gladitz mailto:glad...@sci-vis.de>> wrote:
> Ah that might explain it ... I may have been using nmake on
Windows and
> ninja on linux.
> Thanks!
>
> Nils
>
>
> On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, David Cole wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz
mailto:glad...@sci-vis.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards,
and then
>> later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.
>>
>> After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake
release
>> that follows that.
>>
>>
>>> Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
>>>
>> We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
>> that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other
platform test
>> failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into
'master' until
>> after 2.8.10.
>>
>> We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
>> after we start doing release candidates.
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based
builds, so
>> if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
>> test.
>>
>>
>>> 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
mailto: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
"-NO

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

Has anybody tried this anywhere else? I'm going to merge it to 'next'
tomorrow, so that it will get tested on the dashboards after that. Just
curious if there are any other known problems with it that I should squash
in before doing that...

Thanks,
David



On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, David Cole  wrote:

> I have amended the commit and pushed this branch to the stage. If
> anybody else would like to try it out they can grab the
> "add-timestamp-subcommands" branch from the CMake stage repo.
>
> I did not merge it to 'next' yet, but I will do that when we're ready
> to get it tested on the dashboards.
>
> Thanks for your work on this Nils.
>
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
> > Ah that might explain it ... I may have been using nmake on Windows and
> > ninja on linux.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Nils
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, David Cole wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards, and then
> >> later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.
> >>
> >> After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake release
> >> that follows that.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
> >>>
> >> We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
> >> that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other platform test
> >> failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into 'master' until
> >> after 2.8.10.
> >>
> >> We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
> >> after we start doing release candidates.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based builds, so
> >> if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
> >> test.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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 
> 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 "

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

I have amended the commit and pushed this branch to the stage. If
anybody else would like to try it out they can grab the
"add-timestamp-subcommands" branch from the CMake stage repo.

I did not merge it to 'next' yet, but I will do that when we're ready
to get it tested on the dashboards.

Thanks for your work on this Nils.


David


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
> Ah that might explain it ... I may have been using nmake on Windows and
> ninja on linux.
> Thanks!
>
> Nils
>
>
> On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, David Cole wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards, and then
>> later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.
>>
>> After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake release
>> that follows that.
>>
>>
>>> Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
>>>
>> We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
>> that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other platform test
>> failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into 'master' until
>> after 2.8.10.
>>
>> We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
>> after we start doing release candidates.
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based builds, so
>> if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
>> test.
>>
>>
>>> 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  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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

Ah that might explain it ... I may have been using nmake on Windows and 
ninja on linux.

Thanks!

Nils

On 10/16/2012 05:27 PM, David Cole wrote:

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:

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?


Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards, and then
later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.

After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake release
that follows that.



Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.


We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other platform test
failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into 'master' until
after 2.8.10.

We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
after we start doing release candidates.



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?


The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based builds, so
if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
test.



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  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




--
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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
> 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?
>

Going into 'next' is how stuff gets tested on the dashboards, and then
later Brad and I merge things to 'master' when they're ready.

After something is merged to 'master' it will be in the CMake release
that follows that.


> Brad mentioned this would be on the TODO list for after 2.8.10.
>

We can put it in 'next' to vet it and correct any dashboard issues
that show up (errors/warnings on other platforms, other platform test
failures) at any time. But it will probably not go into 'master' until
after 2.8.10.

We don't typically add significant features or take "risky" changes
after we start doing release candidates.


> 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?
>

The BootstrapTest test only runs on "Unix Makefiles" based builds, so
if you're using a different generator, it does not get added as a
test.


> 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  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 

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

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  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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

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  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
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

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

>From dbb655f718b968145a5eba7eb72b4dd5c47581ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nils Gladitz 
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:55:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] timestamp sub command for string and file

---
 Source/CMakeLists.txt  |2 +
 Source/cmFileCommand.cxx   |   57 +
 Source/cmFileCommand.h |   10 ++
 Source/cmStringCommand.cxx |   54 
 Source/cmStringCommand.h   |   30 -
 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx |  134 
 Source/cmTimestamp.h   |   40 ++
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake  |1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NoFile.cmake   |2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NotBogus.cmake |   24 
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-Works.cmake|2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/FileTest.cmake.in |   12 ++
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake   |   11 ++
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake|1 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake   |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake  |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake|2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake|2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/StringTest.cmake.in   |   30 +
 24 files changed, 425 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.h
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NoFile.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NotBogus.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-Works.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake

diff --git a/Source/CMakeLists.txt b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
index 8bf6c40..9d46355 100644
--- a/Source/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -264,6 +264,8 @@ set(SRCS
   cmTarget.cxx
   cmTarget.h
   cmTargetExport.h
+  cmTimestamp.h
+  cmTimestamp.cxx
   cmTest.cxx
   cmTest.h
   cmTestGenerator.cxx
diff --git a/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx b/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
index 8de24b3..3b074da 100644
--- a/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
+++ b/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
 #include "cm

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Brad King]

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
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

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.
Looking at the documentation for "if()" again only "-NOTFOUND" as a 
suffix should evaluate to false though (I assume the documentation is 
incomplete here?).


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.


Nils

On 10/05/2012 07:34 PM, Brad King wrote:

On 09/29/2012 05:47 AM, Nils Gladitz wrote:

I've updated the patch (attached) to include a "TIMESTAMP" sub-command
for "file" as well (I hope indentation is also fixed).

Thanks.

Use of std::time_t and std::tm will not compile on all of CMake's platforms.
Other code already uses "#include ", "time_t", and "struct tm".

Also, IMO the result in the case of failure should be the empty string
rather than NOTFOUND.  The latter is a convention in the find_* commands
that should never have been used elsewhere.

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Brad King]

On 09/29/2012 05:47 AM, Nils Gladitz wrote:
> I've updated the patch (attached) to include a "TIMESTAMP" sub-command 
> for "file" as well (I hope indentation is also fixed).

Thanks.

Use of std::time_t and std::tm will not compile on all of CMake's platforms.
Other code already uses "#include ", "time_t", and "struct tm".

Also, IMO the result in the case of failure should be the empty string
rather than NOTFOUND.  The latter is a convention in the find_* commands
that should never have been used elsewhere.

Thanks,
-Brad
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

I've updated the patch (attached) to include a "TIMESTAMP" sub-command 
for "file" as well (I hope indentation is also fixed).


I only implemented the last modification time since creation and last 
access time are not implemented by all filesystems (or disabled for 
performance).


Nils
>From fdd3bd749b85ecff1d07e6f735417d8bad1e70c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nils Gladitz 
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:31:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] timestamp sub-command for string and file

---
 Source/CMakeLists.txt  |2 +
 Source/cmFileCommand.cxx   |   57 
 Source/cmFileCommand.h |   10 ++
 Source/cmStringCommand.cxx |   54 
 Source/cmStringCommand.h   |   30 -
 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx |  135 
 Source/cmTimestamp.h   |   42 ++
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake  |1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NoFile.cmake   |2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NotBogus.cmake |   24 
 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-Works.cmake|2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/FileTest.cmake.in |   12 ++
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake   |   11 ++
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake|1 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake   |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake  |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake|2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake|2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/StringTest.cmake.in   |   30 +
 24 files changed, 428 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.h
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NoFile.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-NotBogus.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/File-TIMESTAMP-Works.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake

diff --git a/Source/CMakeLists.txt b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
index 5a3e7d1..00a1a0a 100644
--- a/Source/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ set(SRCS
   cmSystemTools.h
   cmTarget.cxx
   cmTarget.h
+  cmTimestamp.h
+  cmTimestamp.cxx
   cmTest.cxx
   cmTest.h
   cmTestGenerator.cxx
diff --git a/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx b/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
index 8de24b3..3b074da 100644
--- a/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
+++ b/Source/cmFileCommand.cxx
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
 #include "cmFileTimeComparison.h"
 #include "cmCryptoHash.h"
 
+#include "cmTimestamp.h"
+
 #if defined(CMAKE_BUILD_WITH_CMAKE)
 #include "cm_curl.h"
 #endif
@@ -160,6 +162,10 @@ bool cmFileCommand
 {
 return this->HandleCMakePathCommand(args, true);
 }
+  else if ( subCommand == "TIMESTAMP" )
+{
+return this->HandleTimestampCommand(args);
+}
 
   std::string e = "does not recognize sub-command "+subCommand;
   this->SetError(e.c_str());
@@ -3246,3 +3252,54 @@ cmFileCommand::HandleUploadCommand(std::vector const& args)
   return false;
 #endif
 }
+
+//
+bool cmFileCommand::HandleTimestampCommand(
+  std::vector const& args)
+{
+  if(args.size() < 3)
+{
+this->SetError("sub-command TIMESTAMP requires at least two arguments.");
+return false;
+}
+  else if(args.size() > 5)
+{
+this->SetError("sub-command TIMESTAMP takes at most four arguments.");
+return false;
+}
+
+  int argsIndex = 1;
+
+  const std::string& filename = args[argsIndex++];
+
+  const std::string& outputVariable = args[argsIndex++];
+
+  std::string formatString;
+  if(args.size() > argsIndex && args[argsIndex] != "UTC")
+{
+formatString = args[argsIndex++];
+}
+
+  b

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Am 2012-09-28 08:44, schrieb Nils Gladitz:

Sorry about the indentation ... I've still got a bit of trouble
switching between coding conventions.


Yeah, kernel style is the only sane one ;)


On that note, are there documented coding conventions, coding
guidelines or similar somewhere?


My point here was that the code between some if's {} was at the same 
level as the if, at least on some places, but not on all.

--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:

> Why is TIMESTAMP misleading?
>
> Per default it currently outputs year, month, day, hour, minute and second.
> This includes both a date (a day on a calendar) as well as time (time of
> day).
>
> "Timestamp" I'd define as both date and time bound to an event (here the
> call or the (sub-)command).
>
> "Date" I'd consider inaccurate since it implies that there is no time
> resolution.
>
> "Time" I'd say would be slightly more accurate since it has higher
> precision and it matches the naming in C (time_t, tm, strftime ...).
>
> "DateTime" Is accurate and has precedence (e.g. SQL) but is (IMO) not as
> pretty.
>
> To list them in order of personal preference this would for me give:
> Timestamp, DateTime, Time, Date
>
> Nils
>
>
>
> On 09/27/2012 07:41 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>
>> 2012/9/27 David Cole :
>>
>>> H. Good idea.
>>>
>>> Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
>>> "string(" like RANDOM is?
>>>
>>> And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
>>> ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
>>> CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
>>> leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
>>> command to get the various times associated with a file.
>>>
>>> What do other devs here think:
>>> New command or string sub-command for this functionality?
>>>
>> string sub-command for me, and agreed with Brad as well
>> for the "namespace" thing.
>>
>> agreed with file(...) extension as well.
>>
>> that said isn't the "TIMESTAMP" misleading?
>> shouldn't it be called "DATE" instead?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>


I agree with Nils here. I like Timestamp or DateTime best since it has
resolution down to (at least) the second.

Nils, we do not have a formal definition of coding style written out
anywhere.

To summarize our expectations briefly, though, I'd say this:

When modifying existing files, try to blend in with the existing style.
When editing C++ source or header files, keep line length under 80
characters per line. When adding a new file, copy the style from another
file nearby. With *.cmake files, please use lowercase commands. When
defining functions or macros in the CMake language, use "${FileName}_" as a
prefix for functions defined in a *.cmake file, where FileName.cmake is the
name of the containing file.

And ask questions here if there's anything that's unclear.

Thanks,
David
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

Sorry about the indentation ... I've still got a bit of trouble 
switching between coding conventions.


On that note, are there documented coding conventions, coding guidelines 
or similar somewhere?


Nils

On 09/27/2012 11:01 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2012, 17:10:20 schrieb Nils Gladitz:

I've tried to reimplement this as a sting sub-command (patch attached).

Looks good, but the indentation looks wrong at some places.


--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

Why is TIMESTAMP misleading?

Per default it currently outputs year, month, day, hour, minute and second.
This includes both a date (a day on a calendar) as well as time (time of 
day).


"Timestamp" I'd define as both date and time bound to an event (here the 
call or the (sub-)command).


"Date" I'd consider inaccurate since it implies that there is no time 
resolution.


"Time" I'd say would be slightly more accurate since it has higher 
precision and it matches the naming in C (time_t, tm, strftime ...).


"DateTime" Is accurate and has precedence (e.g. SQL) but is (IMO) not as 
pretty.


To list them in order of personal preference this would for me give:
Timestamp, DateTime, Time, Date

Nils


On 09/27/2012 07:41 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:

2012/9/27 David Cole :

H. Good idea.

Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
"string(" like RANDOM is?

And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
command to get the various times associated with a file.

What do other devs here think:
New command or string sub-command for this functionality?

string sub-command for me, and agreed with Brad as well
for the "namespace" thing.

agreed with file(...) extension as well.

that said isn't the "TIMESTAMP" misleading?
shouldn't it be called "DATE" instead?






--
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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2012, 17:10:20 schrieb Nils Gladitz:
> I've tried to reimplement this as a sting sub-command (patch attached).

Looks good, but the indentation looks wrong at some places.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/9/27 David Cole :
> > H. Good idea.
> > 
> > Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
> > "string(" like RANDOM is?
> > 
> > And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
> > ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
> > CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
> > leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
> > command to get the various times associated with a file.
> > 
> > What do other devs here think:
> > New command or string sub-command for this functionality?
> 
> string sub-command for me, and agreed with Brad as well
> for the "namespace" thing.
> 
> agreed with file(...) extension as well.
> 
> that said isn't the "TIMESTAMP" misleading?
> shouldn't it be called "DATE" instead?

I would second that.

Eike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Eric Noulard]

2012/9/27 David Cole :
> H. Good idea.
>
> Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
> "string(" like RANDOM is?
>
> And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
> ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
> CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
> leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
> command to get the various times associated with a file.
>
> What do other devs here think:
> New command or string sub-command for this functionality?

string sub-command for me, and agreed with Brad as well
for the "namespace" thing.

agreed with file(...) extension as well.

that said isn't the "TIMESTAMP" misleading?
shouldn't it be called "DATE" instead?



-- 
Erk
Le gouvernement représentatif n'est pas la démocratie --
http://www.le-message.org
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

I've tried to reimplement this as a sting sub-command (patch attached).

Nils

--
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

>From 661e10678ebe0deef0bccfa99ead80a94264e731 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nils Gladitz 
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:08:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] reimplemented timestamp as string subcommand

---
 Source/CMakeLists.txt  |2 +
 Source/cmStringCommand.cxx |   60 
 Source/cmStringCommand.h   |   30 +-
 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx |   96 
 Source/cmTimestamp.h   |   32 +++
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake   |   11 +++
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake|1 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake|1 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake   |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake  |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake|2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake |2 +
 .../String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake|2 +
 Tests/CMakeTests/StringTest.cmake.in   |   30 ++
 17 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.cxx
 create mode 100644 Source/cmTimestamp.h
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-AllSpecifiers.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg1.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg2.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-BadArg3.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-CustomFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaulFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatLocal.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-DefaultFormatUTC.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-IncompleteSpecifier.cmake
 create mode 100644 Tests/CMakeTests/String-TIMESTAMP-UnknownSpecifier.cmake

diff --git a/Source/CMakeLists.txt b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
index 354f123..e2c5fea 100644
--- a/Source/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/Source/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -257,6 +257,8 @@ set(SRCS
   cmSystemTools.h
   cmTarget.cxx
   cmTarget.h
+  cmTimestamp.h
+  cmTimestamp.cxx
   cmTest.cxx
   cmTest.h
   cmTestGenerator.cxx
diff --git a/Source/cmStringCommand.cxx b/Source/cmStringCommand.cxx
index 0193dc9..c55da23 100644
--- a/Source/cmStringCommand.cxx
+++ b/Source/cmStringCommand.cxx
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include 
+
 //
 bool cmStringCommand
 ::InitialPass(std::vector const& args, cmExecutionStatus &)
@@ -87,6 +89,10 @@ bool cmStringCommand
 {
 return this->HandleFindCommand(args);
 }
+  else if(subCommand == "TIMESTAMP")
+{
+return this->HandleTimestampCommand(args);
+}
 
   std::string e = "does not recognize sub-command "+subCommand;
   this->SetError(e.c_str());
@@ -879,3 +885,57 @@ bool cmStringCommand
   this->Makefile->AddDefinition(variableName.c_str(), &*result.begin());
   return true;
 }
+
+//
+bool cmStringCommand
+::HandleTimestampCommand(std::vector const& args)
+{
+  if(args.size() < 2)
+{
+this->SetError("sub-command TIMESTAMP requires at least one argument.");
+return false;
+}
+  else if(args.size() > 4)
+{
+this->SetError("sub-command TIMESTAMP takes at most three arguments.");
+return false;
+}
+
+  int argsIndex = 1;
+
+  const std::string &outputVariable = args[argsIndex++];
+
+  std::string formatString;
+  if(args.size() > argsIndex && args[argsIndex] != "UTC")
+  {
+formatString = args[argsIndex++];
+  }
+
+  bool utcFlag = false;
+  if(args.size() > argsIndex)
+{
+if(args[argsIndex] == "UTC")
+  {
+  utcFlag = true;
+  }
+  else
+  {
+  std::string e = " TIMESTAMP sub-command does not recognize option " +
+  args[argsIndex] + ".";
+  this->SetError(e.c_str());
+  return false;
+  }
+}
+
+  if(formatString.empty())
+{
+formatString = "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S";
+if(utcFlag) formatString += "Z";
+}
+
+  cmTimestamp timestamp;
+  std::string result = timestamp.CreateTimestamp(

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Brad King]

On 09/27/2012 08:59 AM, Brad King wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 08:37 AM, David Cole wrote:
>> Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
>> "string(" like RANDOM is?
> 
> It should be a string(TIMESTAMP) subcommand.

We haven't added any top-level commands since 2008.  At this point
there are so many projects with macros and functions out there we
probably cannot safely add any new names unless they are long or start
with "cmake_".  Subcommands are easy though.  I tend to think of the
top-level commands like "file" and "string" as namespaces.

-Brad
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Nils Gladitz]

I wouldn't mind if this were a string subcommand.

Initially I wanted something like this to tag package filenames.

What gave me another push is this CMake test:
http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=160586053&build=2583145

It seems to fail on my system because it relies on the US locale 
formatting of %DATE% and %TIME% (my test system has a german locale).


There are also these older mailing list posts asking for something similar:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2009-March/027915.html
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-November/041030.html

It would be really cool to have fractions of seconds too but I'm not 
sure how to portably implement those.


Nils


On 09/27/2012 02:37 PM, David Cole wrote:

H. Good idea.

Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
"string(" like RANDOM is?

And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
command to get the various times associated with a file.

What do other devs here think:
New command or string sub-command for this functionality?


Thanks,
David


On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:

I've tried creating a patch (attached; should apply to master) that adds a
timestamp creation command.
It builds on strftime but only allows a limited number of conversion
specifiers.
I tried to only allow those which are portable (C89), locale independent and
of fixed range and length (with the exception of "%Y").

Nils

--
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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[Brad King]

On 09/27/2012 08:37 AM, David Cole wrote:
> Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
> "string(" like RANDOM is?

It should be a string(TIMESTAMP) subcommand.

-Brad
--

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

Re: [cmake-developers] patch for cmake that adds a new timestamp command

[David Cole]

H. Good idea.

Should we add a new command for this? Or should it be a sub-command of
"string(" like RANDOM is?

And... while we're at it, I've always thought we should add the
ability to get the creation/modified/access times from a file via the
CMake file command. If we allow getting the "current" time, we should
leverage some of the same transformation-to-string code in the file
command to get the various times associated with a file.

What do other devs here think:
New command or string sub-command for this functionality?


Thanks,
David


On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Nils Gladitz  wrote:
> I've tried creating a patch (attached; should apply to master) that adds a
> timestamp creation command.
> It builds on strftime but only allows a limited number of conversion
> specifiers.
> I tried to only allow those which are portable (C89), locale independent and
> of fixed range and length (with the exception of "%Y").
>
> Nils
>
> --
> 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
--

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