The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13321
==
Reported By:Daniel R. Gomez
Assigned To:
I wasn't aware of this defect. Thanks for pointing it out.
Could you give the attached version a whirl? I got rid of the odd caching
behavior (not sure exactly why FindBoost was written that way to begin
with) and this appears to resolve the bug.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Andriy Gapon
On 06/19/2012 04:09 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Some small questions to the workflow:
>
> - I read on the workflow description site
>
> Topic Branch
> ...
> Heads not published (no named branch on server)
>
> What does this mean? I see all the named branches.
I don't know to what text y
On 2012-06-19 22:13, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Considering a 8 or 16 core machine, this could give already 256 mocs
running on 16 cores. I think this would then really be a bit much.
I'd actually have to check first whether most of the time is spent in
executing moc, or in parsing the files for
On Tuesday 19 June 2012, Thomas Sondergaard wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> On 2012-06-18 21:58, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2012, Thomas Sondergaard wrote:
> > > On Windows with MSVC 2010 Generator, moc seems to be very slow and it
> > > is a paint to se
Some small questions to the workflow:
- I read on the workflow description site
Topic Branch
...
Heads not published (no named branch on server)
What does this mean? I see all the named branches.
- And when I start browsing at
http://cmake.org/gitweb
the stage repository is not li
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13320
==
Reported By:Daniel R. Gomez
Assigned To:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> **
>
> On Tuesday 19 June 2012, David Cole wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>
> > > On Di., 19. Jun. 2012 19:53:39 CEST, David Cole <
> david.c...@kitware.com>
>
> > >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Alex and
On Tuesday 19 June 2012, David Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > On Di., 19. Jun. 2012 19:53:39 CEST, David Cole
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Alex and Eike,
> > >
> > > The following topic branches have been on the CMake stage for months,
> > > without any movemen
> (A call to 'ssh g...@cmake.org stage cmake print' shows "next=0" for those
> branches not in 'next' at any given moment)
>
> # Not in 'next':
> # debug-messages | master=0 next=0
We didn't reach consensus about that, so I removed it.
> #lib64-clea
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> On Di., 19. Jun. 2012 19:53:39 CEST, David Cole
> wrote:
>
> > Alex and Eike,
> >
> > The following topic branches have been on the CMake stage for months,
> > without any movement. Are there further plans to move these topics
> > forward
On Di., 19. Jun. 2012 19:53:39 CEST, David Cole wrote:
> Alex and Eike,
>
> The following topic branches have been on the CMake stage for months,
> without any movement. Are there further plans to move these topics
> forward and get them into 'next' or are they simply abandoned at this
> point..
Alex and Eike,
The following topic branches have been on the CMake stage for months,
without any movement. Are there further plans to move these topics forward
and get them into 'next' or are they simply abandoned at this point...?
If abandoned, let's simply remove them from the stage.
If future
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13319
==
Reported By:Daniel R. Gomez
Assigned To:
FindBoost.cmake currently (as of CMake 2.8.8) has fairly simply logic to see if
Boost is already found and the relevant variables are cached.
Essentially that logic verifies that Boost_INCLUDE_DIR and
Boost_${COMPONENT}_FOUND variables are set.
What it doesn't do is validate that the found/cached
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=13318
==
Reported By:jeromerobert
Assigned To:
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=13317
==
Reported By:Rolf Eike Beer
Assigned To:
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13316
==
Reported By:George Petasis
Assigned To:
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for replying.
On 2012-06-18 21:58, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2012, Thomas Sondergaard wrote:
> On Windows with MSVC 2010 Generator, moc seems to be very slow and it is
> a paint to see it run sequentially. Could automoc be taught to do this
> in par
19 matches
Mail list logo
