Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread Stephen Kelly
David Cole wrote: > So: fix the style problem, and then go ahead and merge it to 'next'. > > Unless you also want me to try it out with Visual Studio 6 just for good > measure... :-) > > > Let me know, > David Thanks for those tests. I've squashed it and merged it to next now. Thanks, Steve.

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM, David Cole wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> David Cole wrote: >> >> First batch of (unfortunately) *build* errors from Visual Studio: >> >> >> >> http://open.cdash.org/viewBuildError.php?buildid=2525364 >> >> >> >> c_str and

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > David Cole wrote: > >> First batch of (unfortunately) *build* errors from Visual Studio: > >> > >> http://open.cdash.org/viewBuildError.php?buildid=2525364 > >> > >> c_str and const_iterator issues... > >> > >> Let me know when you have th

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread Stephen Kelly
David Cole wrote: >> First batch of (unfortunately) *build* errors from Visual Studio: >> >> http://open.cdash.org/viewBuildError.php?buildid=2525364 >> >> c_str and const_iterator issues... >> >> Let me know when you have the next commit on the stage, and I'll pull it >> and try again. I've fix

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM, David Cole wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> David Cole wrote: >> > >> > >> > I could run an Experimental based on this branch with Visual Studio and >> > point you to the CDash results if you'd like. >> > >> > Maybe not till tom

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > David Cole wrote: > > > > > > I could run an Experimental based on this branch with Visual Studio and > > point you to the CDash results if you'd like. > > > > Maybe not till tomorrow, though. > > That works for me, thanks :) > > > -- > > Po

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-20 Thread Brad King
On 08/19/2012 04:17 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > maybe the comment I pointed out should be > removed or made more clear. It doesn't seem to relate to what the code is > actually about. What do you think? This is the code in question: // Make the definition appear properly on the command line.

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-19 Thread Stephen Kelly
David Cole wrote: > > > I could run an Experimental based on this branch with Visual Studio and > point you to the CDash results if you'd like. > > Maybe not till tomorrow, though. That works for me, thanks :) -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http:/

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-19 Thread David Cole
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Brad King wrote: > > > On 8/16/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> I thought that I could make -DNAME="value" appear twice with this code: > >> > >> add_definitions(-D"NAME=Value" -DNAME="Value") > > > > CMake syntax treats quotes in t

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-19 Thread Stephen Kelly
Brad King wrote: > On 8/16/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I thought that I could make -DNAME="value" appear twice with this code: >> >> add_definitions(-D"NAME=Value" -DNAME="Value") > > CMake syntax treats quotes in the middle of an unquoted argument > literally. The double quotes are

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-17 Thread Brad King
On 8/16/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > I thought that I could make -DNAME="value" appear twice with this code: > > add_definitions(-D"NAME=Value" -DNAME="Value") CMake syntax treats quotes in the middle of an unquoted argument literally. The double quotes are part of the string. This co

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-16 Thread Stephen Kelly
Brad King wrote: > On 08/13/2012 09:09 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I uploaded a compromise compile-definitions-unique branch to my gitorious >> (g...@gitorious.org:~steveire/cmake/steveires- cmake.git) >> which stores the unescaped definition in the set, and escapes it in the >> JoinDefines method

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-13 Thread Brad King
On 08/13/2012 09:09 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > I uploaded a compromise compile-definitions-unique branch to my gitorious > (g...@gitorious.org:~steveire/cmake/steveires-cmake.git) which stores the > unescaped definition in the set, and escapes it in the JoinDefines method. Even better, thanks.

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-13 Thread Stephen Kelly
Brad King wrote: > On 08/10/2012 10:30 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I've updated the branch with the API change to use std::set. The XCode >> generator does not use the cmLocalGenerator::AppendDefines method, but >> the VisualStudio6Generator does. > > That wasn't quite what I had in mind. The st

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Brad King
On 08/10/2012 10:30 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > I've updated the branch with the API change to use std::set. The XCode > generator does not use the cmLocalGenerator::AppendDefines method, but the > VisualStudio6Generator does. That wasn't quite what I had in mind. The string of escaped defines

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Stephen Kelly
Brad King wrote: > On 08/10/2012 08:53 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> The point of doing it in a separate test was to be more clearly able to >> see the duplication without it getting lost in a different test, and to >> be able to see which one sets which definition first (add_defintions or >> set_pr

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Brad King
On 08/10/2012 08:53 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > The point of doing it in a separate test was to be more clearly able to see > the duplication without it getting lost in a different test, and to be able > to see which one sets which definition first (add_defintions or > set_property(COMPILE_DEFINI

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Stephen Kelly
Brad King wrote: > On 08/10/2012 04:53 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I've merged a branch into next to ensure that compiler definitions are >> only added one time on the command line. > > The "Preprocessor" test already has extensive coverage of > COMPILE_DEFINITIONS. Can that test be extended for

Re: [cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Brad King
On 08/10/2012 04:53 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > I've merged a branch into next to ensure that compiler definitions are only > added one time on the command line. The "Preprocessor" test already has extensive coverage of COMPILE_DEFINITIONS. Can that test be extended for your cases instead of addin

[cmake-developers] Unique compile definitions

2012-08-10 Thread Stephen Kelly
Hi, I've merged a branch into next to ensure that compiler definitions are only added one time on the command line. I haven't yet merged it to next because I'm not sure if other generators need a similar change (I tested with Makefiles and Ninja), and I'm not sure if there's any reason it is