Hi!
I’m currently struggling with trying to build GNOME projects using meson, but
depending on CMake-built libraries, either in the wild or inside a package
manager. I have managed to uncover that the way Meson is trying to invoke CMake
for this summer project, but it
seems that’s the first step.
Cheers,
Máté
Feladó: Kyle Edwards
Elküldve: 2019. július 8., hétfő 15:56
Címzett: Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc; CMake fejlesztők
Tárgy: Re: [cmake-developers] cmake-file-api and CTest
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 09:04 +, Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via cmake
Tárgy: Re: [cmake-developers] cmake-file-api and CTest
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 09:04 +, Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via cmake-
developers wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am trying to cook a CTest back-end to the Test Explorer UI
> extension for VS Code as a summer project and I thought of using the
Hi!
I am trying to cook a CTest back-end to the Test Explorer UI extension for VS
Code as a summer project and I thought of using the new cmake-file-api for it.
The docs however are understandably scarce and I could not muster how to obtain
tests and not targets. Is it possible with this
Hi!
I am trying to improve the developer experience of SYCL users for both those
using triSYCL and ComputeCpp alike. (TL;DR: SYCL is CUDA of OpenCL, triSYCL
being a non-conforming playground implementation built atop OpenMP, while
ComputeCpp is the first (and only) conforming GPU-accelerated
Indeed, such a feature would come in handy to test libraries for correctly
failing on erronous user input.
What amazes me even more is that noone has stepped up yet to create CBench. A
utility executable for measuring compilation times and capture output of some
(micro)benchmark
The link error is some error on my setup. The /nologo et al part still stands
though. Can CMake invoke the Windows binary of Clang correctly?
Feladó: Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via CMake
Elküldve: 2017. szeptember 12., kedd 15:01
Címzett: Cmake Mailing List
Tárgy: [CMake] Clang for Windows with CMake
Hi!
I am trying to build using the Open Folder feature of VS (with CMake server
mode integration) with the Windows binary release of Clang. However, when I try
to build using clang++.exe, it argues about unknown compiler switches
clang++.exe: error: no such file or directory: '/nologo'
while
ttp://www.jcelerier.name
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via cmake-developers
<cmake-developers@cmake.org> wrote:
Impressed with VSCode?? If I saw this post anywhere else than the CMake mailing
list, I’d understand, but VSCode with CMake is horrible. The fact that in 201
Impressed with VSCode?? If I saw this post anywhere else than the CMake mailing
list, I’d understand, but VSCode with CMake is horrible. The fact that in 2017
I have to set include directories, compiler definitions and target paths
manually to have proper IntelliSense (Code navigation and
I can only speak about VS, which currently neither with the VS nor the Ninja
generator use the FOLDERS property to lay out the targets inside the Solution
Explorer. Instead, it maintains the folder structure of the CMake project. This
was an intentional design decision from their part (at least
I just wanted to note that big thumbs up for both the effort and the design.
Eagerly awaiting the time I can use it in my projects. As soon as it lands,
I’ll imbue the triSYCL CMake scripts to make use of it.
Sidenote/question: Is it possible for multiple targets to share the same PCH?
This
Hi!
Can anyone point to a minimalistic sample of how a CUDA application is built
using the new CMake 3.9 support for CUDA compilation? I am mostly interested in
promoting similar syntax of building SYCL applications that share a very
similar compilation model, as far as ComputeCpp is
I think it’s a good idea.
Having PackageConfig.cmake files for all projects would be better, but
unfortunately, many projects don’t support CMake to that extent (or to any
extent to be precise). I still consume SFML like this, even though the project
itself builds with CMake, so they could’ve
Hi Egor!
This thread very much resembles my suggestion from two years ago, when I
proposed there should be an intermediate representation of the CMake scripts so
generators can be implemented against a stable IR as opposed to bare C++
constructs. (Google „CMake IR”)
My main motive too was to
Does anyone know of the happening around Boost 2 and its possible adoption of
CMake? I know Boost and CMake have a very long and very sad history, but I
recall someone reporting on this list that he/she will attend a Boost 2 related
conference and will again promote the benefits of CMake as
I would also very much like to see a tutorial on this. There are just too darn
many options to set for me to believe CMake could ever get the job done.
Release notes for Publishing to the store, age rating for my app, can it
correctly set source types to be DX resources, DX shaders, etc… there
Short version: no.
Long version: Visual Studio is heavily built around MSBuild as the back-end of
execution of various tasks. While theoretically it could be done that MSBuild
only acts as a relay and calls into Ninja scripts, you would lose the entire
feature set of Solution Explorer, which
Hi Jan,
Unfortunately, I cannot help you in this regard, though I am surprised how
little attention this question gained. I too feel that CMake could do better
both in this regard. While ABI detection is very well done, BUILD_TYPE seems to
be the only compiler agnostic option available. I do
Hi Michael,
first of all, let me congratulate you on the integration. Great stuff and much
apreciated.
I gave your add-in a spin, however it fails to find my unit tests. I set the
output directory globally in the top-level CMakeLists.txt file as
set (CMAKE_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY
I would also be very much interested how this could be done. There was a thread
I started a few months ago on a similar topic. I wanted to see the execution
times of various tests without the initialization part. If my tests could
output in some form the useful part of their run times, it
Hi DJ,
I had the same feeling when I started out with CMake. Tutorials are generally
of low quality, and the price of the book is steep. I asked a while back if
there would be a digital version of it, that could come cheaper due to the lack
of paper and distribution hassle, but Kitware said
that is the least painful. I am very reluctant on
obtaining dependencies. CMake is such a good tool, it seems strange to me that
no direct benchmarking support has been added yet.
Any ideas?
Feladó: Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via CMake
Elküldve: 2015. november 9., hétfő 23:27
Címzett: CMake felhasználók
Hi!
Can anyone tell me if CMake (or CTest) can be customized in a way to produce
decent benchmark output? An .xlsx perhaps, or something GnuPlot friendly? I
have not found any examples of CTest being (ab)used in this way.
Is my feeling correct, that this should be something like CBench?
Hi!
I'm trying to use the package config file of clFFT (big congrats on providing
one), but it seems I'm doing something wrong. Without using FindclFFT.cmake,
CMake fails to find the config files, both on Windows and Ubuntu. On Windows I
have a registry entry such as:
PS C:\Users\Matty>
@all:
Thank you folks for the input and the active discussion (not shifting into
flame and troll wars).
@DaveDan:
I agree that JSON looks better. I have no fetish about XML and I could be
convinced on just about anything in the choice of the IR. The only important
point is that it
Dear CMake devs/users,
I wanted to ask your opinion on something that has been troubling me since…
well, ever since I started using CMake. I have not found a single person alive
who would have said:
“The script language of CMake is nice, intuitive and productive. Authoring
scripts is easy,
@Domagoj:
“In addition to it feeling like working with (or fighting against) an ugly
crossover between a C preprocessor and a shell script from 1979, an
increasingly
big source of frustration is its rigidness and limitation of 'only one
toolset/compiler per project'.”
I couldn’t have put
Dear CMake devs/users,
I wanted to ask your opinion on something that has been troubling me since…
well, ever since I started using CMake. I have not found a single person alive
who would have said:
“The script language of CMake is nice, intuitive and productive. Authoring
scripts is easy,
How many people have I asked? We are a group of 5, and have several fellows who
have drifted off to companies each with their respective dev teams of 5-15
people. General tendency is that everywhere, there is 1 CMake guru, the rest
would be better off not touching the scripts, because they do
Hi Nico,
thank you for the idea. That idea occured to me too, trying to generate the
CMakelists.txt script from the desired front-end. Having taken a deep dive into
XML schemas, hardcore people even criticise W3C XML Schemas for not having a
mathematical foundation which make it difficult
May I ask what you mean by ‘editors’? Do you mean GUI editors to managing CMake
projects?
Máté
Feladó: Bill Hoffman
Elküldve: csütörtök, 2015. július 23. 16:38
Címzett: cmake@cmake.org
On 7/23/2015 8:45 AM, David Cole via CMake wrote:
Nope.
CMake has no way of knowing
You’re doing it all wrong. You do not name source files as make targets, but
the target name (or project name, I have no idea, because it rarely makes sense
to name them differently). Try simply “foo” or “custom-command-target”. You
would never say “make foo.cpp”, not even in an ordinary GNU
I’m curious too, but I think that it would be easier to use a fixed format for
project representation, such as the suggested CPS, and have it generate a CMake
file if an update is needed.
CMake generally lacks any kind of structure, users are generally free to roam
about the script language.
:01, Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc via CMake wrote:
This is more of a remark, or something to get the ball rolling, rather than
anything else.
I recently came across various FindModule.cmake files (FindOpenCL, FindOpenGL,
FindGLEW, FindGLM, FindSFML) as a sideeffect of a project I am developing
This is more of a remark, or something to get the ball rolling, rather than
anything else.
I recently came across various FindModule.cmake files (FindOpenCL, FindOpenGL,
FindGLEW, FindGLM, FindSFML) as a sideeffect of a project I am developing, but
have had my share with quite a few others
I wish you good luck on promoting CMake for Boost.
Generally, I find the Boost libraries to be of good quality. However, the
reason I fear depending on Boost in any of my projects is the aggravation to
get various versions to build. Applications that depend on Boost and are
shipped as a
I wasn’t hoping for much enthusiasm, but at least some feedback would be
welcome. Am I making any sense here? Would such work be completely useless? I
figured a crossplatform make language could make use of a script-friendly
back-end to facilitate automated building for multiple platforms.
Hi!
Being a CMake user for some time, I have come across the issue of parallel
builds still being problem with no trivial solution. the NMake back-end does
not have batch support, which is said to be non-trivial, while the ninja
generator did tend to fail some builds for me too, when I gave
39 matches
Mail list logo
