Re: [cmake-developers] Surprising CMP0054 behavior

2018-03-26 Thread Craig Scott
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Brad King wrote: > On 03/26/2018 08:07 AM, Craig Scott wrote: > > Am I missing something, or is the following result surprising to others > as well: > > > > set(somevar YES) > > if ("somevar") > > message("Get here if CMP0054 is OLD (seems okay)") > > else()

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Cmake Frameworks and Bitcode

2018-03-26 Thread Brad King
On 03/26/2018 04:24 AM, Cameron Palmer wrote: > However, setting the property BUILD_WITH_INSTALL_RPATH on or off doesn't > change anything as far as I can tell. The target is still linked with > -headerpad_max_install_names and the linker still complains. Oops, I mixed up functionality with other

Re: [cmake-developers] Surprising CMP0054 behavior

2018-03-26 Thread Brad King
On 03/26/2018 08:07 AM, Craig Scott wrote: > Am I missing something, or is the following result surprising to others as > well: > > set(somevar YES) > if ("somevar") >     message("Get here if CMP0054 is OLD (seems okay)") > else() >     message("Get here if CMP0054 is NEW (surprising?)") > endif

[cmake-developers] Surprising CMP0054 behavior

2018-03-26 Thread Craig Scott
Am I missing something, or is the following result surprising to others as well: set(somevar YES) if ("somevar") message("Get here if CMP0054 is OLD (seems okay)") else() message("Get here if CMP0054 is NEW (surprising?)") endif() I would have thought that even with CMP0054 being NEW, the