On 2006-09-08 14:40, Brandon J. Van Every said:
Benjamin Reed wrote:
On 9/6/06, Brandon J. Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually it's not invalid to compile it. That's what a cross-compiler
does. It's invalid to run it. CMake already has this distinction
between TRY_COMPILE and
On 9/11/06, Brandon J. Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrm. I wanted to say that CMake should treat a Universal binary as
multiple targets. But if gcc treats them as a single target, that's not
possible. Sticky wicket. Suppress Endian checks on MacOS X?
Basically. Although you'll
I've been working on determining on how to do the platform part of this. My first guess is we could do something like this in the platform files:(from gcc.cmake)IF(CMAKE_COMPILER_IS_GNUCC) SET (CMAKE_C_FLAGS_INIT "") SET (CMAKE_C_FLAGS_DEBUG_INIT "-g") SET (CMAKE_C_FLAGS_MINSIZEREL_INIT "-Os
At 02:39 AM 9/8/2006, Michael Casadevall wrote:
I've been working on determining on how to do the platform part of this. My
first guess is we could do something like this in the platform files:
(from gcc.cmake)
IF(CMAKE_COMPILER_IS_GNUCC)
SET (CMAKE_C_FLAGS_INIT )
SET
On 9/6/06, Brandon J. Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually it's not invalid to compile it. That's what a cross-compiler
does. It's invalid to run it. CMake already has this distinction
between TRY_COMPILE and TRY_RUN, so if TRY_RUN is used inappropriately,
that's user error. If CMake
Hrm, interesting idea, I admit that it didn't occur to me, although I
don't see how it really is that different. In your case, you simply
setting the same variables twice for local and cross-compilation,
which seems a little kludgy. I mean, you still need to handle all the
CMAKE_CROSS
At 12:28 PM 9/8/2006, Michael Casadevall wrote:
Hrm, interesting idea, I admit that it didn't occur to me, although I
don't see how it really is that different. In your case, you simply
setting the same variables twice for local and cross-compilation,
which seems a little kludgy. I mean, you
At 03:02 PM 9/8/2006, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2006-09-08 13:59-0400 William A. Hoffman wrote:
As a CMake developer I think it would be much easier to do it with
two makefiles. As far as I can tell there are two modes of cross compiling.
1. The whole project is being built for some other
Hi,
Von: William A. Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
The trouble is that in the case of 2, when you build
some sort of code generation executable as part of the build and run it
during
the build, it has to be built for the host or local machine.
Exactly.
Just imagine somebody might want to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ...
lol, I actually intended to try cross-compiling KDE as a demostration of CMake's cross-compiling abilities once
At 04:06 PM 9/8/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ...
lol, I actually intended to try cross-compiling KDE as a demostration
At 04:33 PM 9/8/2006, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
How should all that work when cross-compiling ?
The FindFoo.cmake files as far as I can see cannot and are not written to find
libraries in strange directories for cross-compiling.
All the values could be set manually by hand, but this is not
On 2006-09-08 22:33+0200 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
[...]Once it is possible to do this, the cross-compiling abilities are really
perfect.
In KDE we do about one million configure checks, checking the availability of
various functions, types and headers. And we use many extra libraries, which
Benjamin Reed wrote:
On 9/6/06, Brandon J. Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually it's not invalid to compile it. That's what a cross-compiler
does. It's invalid to run it. CMake already has this distinction
between TRY_COMPILE and TRY_RUN, so if TRY_RUN is used inappropriately,
that's
]
Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ...
lol, I actually intended to try cross-compiling KDE as a
demostration
of CMake's cross-compiling abilities once it was perfected.
Once it is possible to do this, the cross-compiling abilities
Michael Casadevall wrote:
My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and
cmake, In some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to
cross-compiling (which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you
need the cmake executable to build any CMake package. autotools
Arjen Markus wrote:
Michael Casadevall wrote:
My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and
cmake, In some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to
cross-compiling (which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you
need the cmake
Arjen Markus wrote:
Don't forget all those PCs with Windows installed but no Cygwin or
MingW: they simply can not use the configure scripts. Of course, one
can require these users to install Cygwin or MingW, but what is that
different from installing CMake?
The level of pain. Cygwin is
Arjen Markus wrote:
Arjen Markus wrote:
Don't forget all those PCs with Windows installed but no Cygwin or
MingW: they simply can not use the configure scripts. Of course, one
can require these users to install Cygwin or MingW, but what is that
different
Only Unix people think that end users run ./configure scripts or
CMake. In the Windows world, if you're running a compiler, you're a
developer. You may be a developer who wants a painless build, but
you're still a developer. The answer for an end user is CPack, not
CMake. Even for most
Begin forwarded message:From: Michael Casadevall [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: September 7, 2006 5:38:14 PM EDTTo: "William A. Hoffman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ... I would disagree with that. Your using a cross-compiler, but CMake doesn'
At 06:42 PM 9/7/2006, Michael Casadevall wrote:
1. Never seen that. autotools should only enter cross-compiling mode
if --host is set, and its different the current platform, or if both
build and host are set with different values.
If you look in a configure script..
rm -f a.out a.exe
I wish to add support for cross-compiling to CMake since its a tool I
use a lot, and I can finally kill the last few of my projects using
autotools. To my knowledge, autotools is the only system that
provides cross-compiling, and poorly at that, and I've been thinking
on ways to add it to
Michael Casadevall wrote:
I am interested in any support or ideas before I attempt to take this
project on.
I haven't a clue about what is needed for cross-compiling. But I will
mention there are rumblings in Chicken Scheme land about the importance
of cross-compiling. The perceived need
Michael Casadevall wrote:
My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools
and cmake, In some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to
cross-compiling (which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you need
the cmake executable to build any CMake
At 03:55 PM 9/6/2006, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
Michael Casadevall wrote:
My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and cmake, In
some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to cross-compiling
(which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you need the cmake
On 2006-09-06 02:19, Michael Casadevall said:
I wish to add support for cross-compiling to CMake since its a tool I
use a lot, and I can finally kill the last few of my projects using
autotools. To my knowledge, autotools is the only system that
provides cross-compiling, and poorly at that, and
Point taken in regards to the shell, although busybox which is pretty
standard on embedded devices and that can run configure scripts. I
was referring to obscure platforms such as a DEC workstation. Anyway,
in regards to autotools, this is typically how you cross compile
(this is assuming
Sean McBride wrote:
However, the whole idea of TRY_COMPILE is of course incompatible with
this, since the minute you assume that the machine doing the building is
the same type as the machine you are building for, you are in trouble...
Actually it's not invalid to compile it. That's what a
On 2006-09-06 17:21, Michael Casadevall said:
Basically, it's a kind of cross compilation. On a PowerPC Mac you can
compile your executable for both PPC and Intel Macs, and vice versa.
CMake does support Universal Binaries actually, you may want to see
this
bug for background:
30 matches
Mail list logo
