On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Michael Wild <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 26. Jul, 2010, at 18:49 , Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Alexander Neundorf
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm, the Codeblocks generator is makefile-based.
It is single-configuration.
First let me say I don't know Code Blocks.
The question implies Code Blocks project files support multiple
configurations.
So what does "is single-configuration."?
Olaf
Patches are welcome ;-) I don't think it would be too hard to
implement, mostly some Makefile magic, deferring a lot from CMake-
time to build-time. However I'm unsure as to how people will like it.
Why?
Because it may horrendously interfere with my current established
workflows but I would be open to trying this out. The main issue I can
think of is the whole release/debug versions of libraries clobbering
each other during the build. This would force an updated policy for
the decorating of library/executable names or generating sub folders
for each type of build configuration. Didn't we just discuss this in
another thread?
An there remains the question of how to select the build type from
the command line. I'd hate having to pass make a variable
definition...
Have a default type in CMakeLists?
Olaf
The default is for CMake to generate a "Release" configuration for
Makefile based projects. ie, if you do NOT specify or otherwise set
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE then you will be a "Release" configuration.
Mike Jackson
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
