Hi all,
some time ago I proposed adding Pascal support in cmake and since then I
got a lot of progress.
If you can see here I have a build system ready and working
https://code.google.com/p/hedgewars/source/browse/cmake_modules/CMakeDeterminePascalCompiler.cmake?name=cmake_pascal
https://code.googl
On 2013-03-25 14:07, Brad King wrote:
On 03/25/2013 01:46 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
As is:
- Pros: add_jar accepts jars as it was apparently intended to, as
'source' arguments
- Cons: maybe not optimal interface, must support this going forward
Even after the proposed interface goes in we wil
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=14040
==
Reported By:Javier
Assigned To:
On Monday 25 March 2013, David Cole wrote:
> I know. I understand your motivation, and that the present state of
> affairs is less than desirable.
>
> However, I still object to your patch on two grounds:
>
> (1) Using the name "==" implies that it is doing an equivalence
> comparison, similar to
I know. I understand your motivation, and that the present state of
affairs is less than desirable.
However, I still object to your patch on two grounds:
(1) Using the name "==" implies that it is doing an equivalence
comparison, similar to C / C++, where the same named operator may be
used w
Brad King wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 01:41 PM, Brad King wrote:
>>> So will I squash these commits together and push to next?
>>
>> Yes, if this is intended for 2.8.11-rc2.
>
> I just looked at the change merged to next. Can you please add
> test cases for the error messages?
Done now, thanks,
St
On 03/25/2013 01:41 PM, Brad King wrote:
>> So will I squash these commits together and push to next?
>
> Yes, if this is intended for 2.8.11-rc2.
I just looked at the change merged to next. Can you please add
test cases for the error messages?
Thanks,
-Brad
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visi
On 03/25/2013 01:46 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> As is:
> - Pros: add_jar accepts jars as it was apparently intended to, as
> 'source' arguments
> - Cons: maybe not optimal interface, must support this going forward
Even after the proposed interface goes in we will still have to
support the old-s
On 2013-03-25 13:14, Brad King wrote:
On 03/25/2013 12:28 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'm on the fence if this should target 2.8.11. On the plus side, it
means the historic behavior of ignoring jar files listed as sources will
be preserved. On the down side, it is late in the cycle and this is a
On 03/25/2013 01:31 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> it is right to error on "${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/../bar/bat"
Yes because if the source dir doesn't exist later the path will
not be resolvable.
> So will I squash these commits together and push to next?
Yes, if this is intended for 2.8.11-rc2.
-Brad
-
Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> There are other places that we check for paths under the source/build
>> trees, such as:
>>
>>
>
http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=blob;f=Source/cmLocalGenerator.cxx;hb=v2.8.10.2#l2485
>>
>
> Thanks, I'll look into that a bit later.
>
I looked into this a bit and wr
On 03/25/2013 12:28 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> these must now be explicitly specified with INCLUDE_JARS. Other named
> arguments are SOURCES (optional, to 'reset' to listing sources after
> 'INCLUDE_JARS'), OUTPUT_DIR, OUTPUT_NAME, VERSION and ENTRY_POINT. These
> supersede the old variables,
I have pushed a branch (use-java-use-parse-arguments) to stage that
converts add_jar to using cmake_parse_arguments. This partly revers the
previous change to accept jars and jar targets as sources for 'linking';
these must now be explicitly specified with INCLUDE_JARS. Other named
arguments ar
Brad King wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 05:57 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> I've pushed the error-on-exported-missing-include-dir branch to my
>>> clone.
>
> Why does the test need CMAKE_OMIT_INCLUDES_CHECK?
Without it I get
Target "testSharedLibRequired" INTERFACE_INCLUDE_DI
On 03/25/2013 05:57 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I've pushed the error-on-exported-missing-include-dir branch to my clone.
Why does the test need CMAKE_OMIT_INCLUDES_CHECK?
> I'm also not sure if the check for '..' in the path is the right way to
> check this, whether symli
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> We already have similar errors in the exported "targets" files for
>>> things like missing library files. The wording says something about
>>> possible missing or broken packages.
>>
>> Right, I'll see if I can do something similar over the next fe
Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> We already have similar errors in the exported "targets" files for
>> things like missing library files. The wording says something about
>> possible missing or broken packages.
>
> Right, I'll see if I can do something similar over the next few days.
I've pushed the erro
17 matches
Mail list logo
