On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 12:51 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
>
>> I certainly agree with all of your points but consider this. Even though
>> PCH support may not exist on every compiler, every company that wants to
>> add PCH support to CMake through script
On 5/18/2012 12:51 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
I certainly agree with all of your points but consider this. Even though
PCH support may not exist on every compiler, every company that wants to
add PCH support to CMake through scripting logic is essentially doing
the same work over and over again.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 12:50 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
>> Normally when you encounter "professional" software (that is, software
>> that you pay for, that is generally well designed and maintained by a
>> single entity), it has a consistent feel. Open
On 5/17/2012 12:50 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
Normally when you encounter "professional" software (that is, software
that you pay for, that is generally well designed and maintained by a
single entity), it has a consistent feel. Open source naturally can feel
inconsistent because of the large numbe
Hey Bill,
First of all apologies if I have offended anyone, my goal wasn't to
disrespect CMake or anyone's efforts they put into it. Perhaps I made a
poor choice of words.
What I was trying to convey with my use of the word "professional" was to
say that there are areas that seem inconsistent or
On 5/16/2012 3:49 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
> involved with CMake will help push Kitware to realize how serious
people are
> taking their products and maybe they'll make a move to "professionalize"
> them.
So, I do take offense to this language.
Kitware does take CMake seriously and we are al
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> Sure and I'm pretty sure CMake community and developers in the first place
> try hard to make CMake as robust and as consistent as they can,
> i.e. making it a serious tool in many sense.
>
> Please don't be mad at me, as you probably altready
2012/5/16 Robert Dailey :
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Eric Noulard
>> > I'm assuming this is being setup so users can download pieces of boost
>> > individually and only use the parts they want. I'm glad that Boost is
>> > making
>> > a real effort to use CMake. I think such an influential
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Tue May 15 2012, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > on Mon May 14 2012, Robert Dailey <
> rcdailey.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/5/15 Robert Dailey :
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams
> wrote:
> >>
> >> For me, no. I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
> >> where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
> >
> >
> > I
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2012/5/15 Robert Dailey :
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams
> wrote:
> >>
> >> For me, no. I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
> >> where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
> >
> >
> > I
2012/5/15 Robert Dailey :
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> For me, no. I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
>> where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
>
>
> I actually was reading over the boost modularization discussion, but I
> did
Hi,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:00:09PM -0400, cmake-requ...@cmake.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:53:45 -0500
> From: Robert Dailey
> Subject: Re: [CMake] Secret precompiled header support?
> To: Dave Abrahams
> > > Is the current implementation really satisfactor
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Mon May 14 2012, Robert Dailey <
> rcdailey.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Is improvement desired in this area?
>
> By me, yes.
>
By this, do you mean, you've taken an initiative to fix this yourself? If
on Mon May 14 2012, Robert Dailey
wrote:
> Is improvement desired in this area?
By me, yes.
> Is the current implementation really satisfactory?
For me, no. I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boo
Sorry, I forgot that I already had that code pasted in my original post.
Sorry for the duplicate code :)
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> For those we hard coded many of the flags into a table. So, basically
>> for
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>
> For those we hard coded many of the flags into a table. So, basically for
> VS greater than 6, we have a table that maps flags to actual options in the
> IDE. There is no special per-compiled support in CMake... :)
>
> All it knows is that
On 5/14/2012 5:48 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
I'm seeing this behavior in VS 2003 and VS 2008 as well. Is the same
script used by CMake for these generators too? It's working somehow...
For those we hard coded many of the flags into a table. So, basically
for VS greater than 6, we have a table th
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 2:26 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
>> No one has anything to say about this?
>>CMake seems to do more than just add them as general compiler flags,
>>it seems to know exactly which attributes in the VCPROJ XML are
>>mappe
On 5/14/2012 2:26 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
No one has anything to say about this?
CMake seems to do more than just add them as general compiler flags,
it seems to know exactly which attributes in the VCPROJ XML are
mapped to their respective command line alternatives, and uses the
No one has anything to say about this?
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Robert Dailey wrote:
> To my knowledge there are no dedicated target properties or commands that
> allow one to easily add precompiled headers support to a target. In my
> case, I'm generating for visual studio and I have the
To my knowledge there are no dedicated target properties or commands that
allow one to easily add precompiled headers support to a target. In my
case, I'm generating for visual studio and I have the following that I can
use to enable precompiled headers:
macro( _precompiled_headers PrecompiledHead
22 matches
Mail list logo
