Hi Andreas,
Thanks for the reply and the two points that you raised.
Yes, "make -j" is what I was thinking of. It just didn't occur to me
that it would be make's job; thought separating compilation into
multiple processes has be done at the point the Makefile is
created...guess I was wrong...
T
On Friday 03 September 2010, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
...
> A short non-representation 'valgrind -tool=callgrind cmake .' shows that
> when no configure checks need to be done, 25 percent of the time is used
> for strstr() / SystemTools::ReplaceString() ... wouldn't this be also a
> good point t
Am Freitag 03 September 2010, 21:19:28 schrieb Alexander Neundorf:
> On Friday 03 September 2010, Michael Jackson wrote:
> ...
>
> > I was just thinking about this the other day. One specialized area
> > that would be helped by threads would be in some project configuration
> > where we have CMake
On Friday 03 September 2010, Michael Jackson wrote:
...
> I was just thinking about this the other day. One specialized area
> that would be helped by threads would be in some project configuration
> where we have CMake looking for about 20 different headers and another
> 20 or so types. Generally
On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Thursday 02 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Thursday 02 September 2010, Raymond Wan wrote:
Hi Chiheng,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 16:15, Chiheng Xu
wrote:
CMake is a very great tool.But its drawback is also
obvious.
On Thursday 02 September 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday 02 September 2010, Raymond Wan wrote:
> > Hi Chiheng,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 16:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> > > CMake is a very great tool. But its drawback is also obvious. It
> > > will consume large amount of time
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> Perhaps, CMake can parse CMakeLists.txt, and directly run
> comands(compiler, etc) to build, without gererating Makefile,
> invoking make, invoking shells.
>
Three answers, just off the top of my head:
1. Why re-invent the wheel? Make already
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Alexander Neundorf
wrote:
>
> Generated makefiles can't be portable e.g. because they contain include paths
> and paths to libraries which will be linked which can differ on each system.
> Also, the generated makefiles contain calls to cmake e.g. for the progress
>
On Thursday 02 September 2010, Raymond Wan wrote:
> Hi Chiheng,
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 16:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> > CMake is a very great tool. But its drawback is also obvious. It
> > will consume large amount of time to generate Makefiles every time you
> > want to build, especially f
On 02.09.10 17:02:02, Diablo 666 wrote:
>
> > I think what Andreas meant is that he expects IDE's to use CMake
> > as their native build system and auto-generate the CMake code.
>
> Exactly. AFAIK KDevelop 4 is actually building cmake files.
It doesn't, it tries to help you write them and even s
On 2. Sep, 2010, at 17:02 , Diablo 666 wrote:
>
>> I think what Andreas meant is that he expects IDE's to use CMake
>> as their native build system and auto-generate the CMake code.
>
> Exactly. AFAIK KDevelop 4 is actually building cmake files. But I didn't
> see a working version of it, yet :
> I think what Andreas meant is that he expects IDE's to use CMake
> as their native build system and auto-generate the CMake code.
Exactly. AFAIK KDevelop 4 is actually building cmake files. But I didn't
see a working version of it, yet :(
__
On 2. Sep, 2010, at 16:54 , Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 10:44 AM, Diablo 666 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > For example, when you add a C++ source file,
>> > you'll need to run cmake and then make.
>>
>> make will automatically re-run cmake, if the cmake files have changed.
>> I guess, there will
On 9/2/2010 10:44 AM, Diablo 666 wrote:
Hi,
> For example, when you add a C++ source file,
> you'll need to run cmake and then make.
make will automatically re-run cmake, if the cmake files have changed.
I guess, there will be some IDEs automatically generating cmake files in
the future.
Th
Hi,
> For example, when you add a C++ source file,
> you'll need to run cmake and then make.
make will automatically re-run cmake, if the cmake files have changed.
I guess, there will be some IDEs automatically generating cmake files in the
future.
> generate n Makefiles so that each CPU is re
Hi Chiheng,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 16:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> CMake is a very great tool. But its drawback is also obvious. It
> will consume large amount of time to generate Makefiles every time you
> want to build, especially for ultra large projects. Building can be
> parallelized, b
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:08, Michael Wild wrote:
> Ever timed "gcc -M" which is the usual approach to dependency-generation of
> hand-crafted Makefiles? THAT is slow. ;-)
It's also correct, which requires preprocessing all the headers.
gcc -MMD will do the same as a side-effect of the build so
On 2. Sep, 2010, at 10:04 , Mike McQuaid wrote:
>
> On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:49, Chiheng Xu wrote:
>
>> Suppose you have a ultra large project, it will consume 5 minutes to
>> CMake, 2 hours to build serially. If you have an 64 Cores ccNUMA
>> systems, like Xeon 7500 (8 Cores * 8), theretically
On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:49, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> Suppose you have a ultra large project, it will consume 5 minutes to
> CMake, 2 hours to build serially. If you have an 64 Cores ccNUMA
> systems, like Xeon 7500 (8 Cores * 8), theretically, you will have a
> 60+ accelaration in parallel build. Th
On 2. Sep, 2010, at 9:49 , Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Mike McQuaid wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
>>
>>> CMake is a very great tool.But its drawback is also obvious.It
>>> will consume large amount of time to generate Makefiles every ti
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Mike McQuaid wrote:
>
> On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
>
>> CMake is a very great tool. But its drawback is also obvious. It
>> will consume large amount of time to generate Makefiles every time you
>> want to build, especially for ultra large pro
On 2 Sep 2010, at 08:15, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> CMake is a very great tool.But its drawback is also obvious.It
> will consume large amount of time to generate Makefiles every time you
> want to build, especially for ultra large projects. Building can be
> parallelized, but the CMaking, li
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Chris Hillery wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"
>> "@mac.com> wrote:
>> > CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else
>> >
>> > Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?
>> >
2010/9/2 Chiheng Xu :
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"
> "@mac.com> wrote:
>> CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else
>>
>> Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?
>>
>
> Perhaps some people don't like the time consuming invocation of CMake.
>
> Maybe CMake can gen
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"
> "@mac.com> wrote:
> > CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else
> >
> > Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?
> >
>
> Perhaps some people don't like the time consuming invocatio
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"
> "@mac.com> wrote:
>> CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else
>>
>> Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?
>>
>
> Perhaps some people don't like the time consuming invocation of
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"
"@mac.com> wrote:
> CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else
>
> Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?
>
Perhaps some people don't like the time consuming invocation of CMake.
Maybe CMake can generate relocatable Makefiles only con
CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing elseWhy would you write the Makefiles by yourself?Best RegardsNoRulezAm 19. Aug 2010 um 16:12 schrieb Eric Noulard :2010/8/19 Mr Shore :
> Basically, cmake parsor can understand makefile, that's why it can generate
> makefile from CMakeLists.txt,
As far as
2010/8/19 Mr Shore :
> Basically, cmake parsor can understand makefile, that's why it can generate
> makefile from CMakeLists.txt,
As far as I know CMake does NOT understand Makefile it does **generates**
makefiles which is totally different story.
Again AFAIK CMake is never **reading** a Makefil
MySQL already builds with CMake, currently.
For example, search for cmake on this page:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/connector-c-building.html
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Mr Shore :
> > Actually it's not my projects, but the well known projects lik
2010/8/19 Mr Shore :
> Actually it's not my projects, but the well known projects like MySQL,
> Firefox and so on..
CMakeifying this kind of project may not be an easy task, moreover my own
opinion is that you shoudl ensure that the project stakeholder may be
interested in
this effort.
In fact if
2010/8/19 Mr Shore :
> As we know most (old) open source projects are using makefile,
>
> is there a tool to convert makefile to CMakeLists.txt ?
None I am aware of.
Some converters are listed on the Wiki:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake#Converters_from_other_buildsystems_to_CMake
I have some v
As we know most (old) open source projects are using makefile,
is there a tool to convert makefile to CMakeLists.txt ?
___
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please
33 matches
Mail list logo
