On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Michael Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote:
Because it may horrendously interfere with my current established
workflows
Why?
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.
Doesn't Code Blocks have a convention like this already?
Didn't we just discuss this in another thread?
Yes, we did.
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.
AFAIK that's false.
Olaf
Hmm. At some point it was because I specifically asked on this list a
number of years ago. Maybe things have changed.
___________________________________________________________
Mike Jackson www.bluequartz.net
Principal Software Engineer [email protected]
BlueQuartz Software Dayton, Ohio
_______________________________________________
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
