The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=14753
==
Reported By:Dmiry Marakasov
Assigned To:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 19:16:49 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >If you're looking for corner-cases, check out the RunCMake.Syntax test
> >in the source tree. If you can handle that, you're probably doing pretty
> >well on the basics.
>
> Thanks; I may do that some time.
Also look at RunCMake.va
Given the complicated nature of FindBoost and it's many many use cases, I'd
like to run this by the list for inclusion in to the FindBoost.cmake
module. First let me preface this with the note that this patch maintains
100% backwards compatibility and will default to the current behaviour.
That be
Hi Eike,
all right, then Hg, as it's FindHg, unless there is a naming policy I'm
not aware of. I was just confused a bit due to FindGit, which uses GIT_
as the prefix.
How do I proceed from here? What should I do next?
Cheers,
Matthäus
On 08.02.2014 17:38, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Samstag,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:42:53 -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> I've addressed this…at least 2x speedup of Ninja's generate time in
> ParaView (2.8.12.2: 95 seconds; branch with *all* performance changes: <
> 40 seconds; something like 55 with just the Ninja changes). It will show
> up on the stage in
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14752
==
Reported By:N. Thompson
Assigned To:
On 02/12/2014 08:40 AM, Brad King wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 04:15 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I haven't looked thoroughly, but how much does dependency
>> specification/handling need to change? The dependency of a command on a set
>> of targets should now be config-specific, right?
>
> I haven't re
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:46:39 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >That code isn't even on the radar for expensive code. It probably could
> >be replaced with smaller code other than lex/yacc, but it's not worth
> >the time if performance is the goal (removing lines, however…). Anything
> >other tha
On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> I haven't looked thoroughly, but how much does dependency
> specification/handling need to change? The dependency of a command on a set
> of targets should now be config-specific, right? Does that mean making
> changes to cmTargetTraceDepend
Steve Wilson wrote:
> I saved a copy of the branch in another of the repository. The commit
> numbers didn’t change and as far as I can tell they are still in the same
> order that I had them in when I initially pushed the branch.There are
> no rebases removing the downstream updates, etc...
I saved a copy of the branch in another of the repository. The commit numbers
didn’t change and as far as I can tell they are still in the same order that I
had them in when I initially pushed the branch.There are no rebases
removing the downstream updates, etc...
On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:0
On 2014-02-11 23:03, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 19:16:49 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 2014-02-11 17:54, Ben Boeckel wrote:
ExpandVariablesInString is the part which takes a string which may have
variables in it and dereferences them.
Yes, that's why your changes are probab
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 14:49:42 -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> (though Makefiles generate faster than the configure for
> ParaView) and minimal for Ninja).
I've addressed this…at least 2x speedup of Ninja's generate time in
ParaView (2.8.12.2: 95 seconds; branch with *all* performanc
On 2014-02-11 23:03, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 19:16:49 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 2014-02-11 17:54, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Parsing in CMake is split into separate sections: the part which parses
the lines into CMake's command calls and the part which expands
variables (which
On 02/12/2014 04:15 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> I haven't looked thoroughly, but how much does dependency
> specification/handling need to change? The dependency of a command on a set
> of targets should now be config-specific, right?
I haven't read through the topic yet but IIRC we discussed the
Steve Wilson wrote:
> I just pushed the topic AddCustomCommandWithConfig to stage. This topic
> implements the CONFIG keyword for add_custom_command().
I haven't looked thoroughly, but how much does dependency
specification/handling need to change? The dependency of a command on a set
of targ
Steve Wilson wrote:
> when I do the checkout followed by the reset —hard,
> all I get is the same set of commits that I had before.
What makes you conclude they are the same?
Thanks,
Steve.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=14751
==
Reported By:Stephen Kelly
Assigned To:
18 matches
Mail list logo