John Pretz wrote:
Oh, you're a hero. Thank you. I didn't even realize that gcc had an
option to force compilation as c++. But that works.
I'll file a bug report nonetheless.
No need for a bug report, this can be done like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/My Builds/CMake/Tests
$ less SetLang/CMak
On 6/10/07, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Clark J. Wang wrote:
On 6/10/07, Jack Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Clark J. Wang wrote:
> > Clark J. Wang wrote:
> > > Another question:
> > >
> > > By default `make clean' does not kno
Please file that info in the bug tracker. I don't know how "academic"
differs from "pro," or whether "academic" means it's intended for
students or professors.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
On 6/10/07, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am using the "academic" version of "visual studio 2005"
---
Yes, if I say: PROJECT(projectname CXX) in the source, then it doesn't
generate a target for my .c files. The resulting makefiles don't even
try to compile the .c file.
I neglected in my e-mail that I'm using the latest-and-greatest cmake
version 2.4-patch 6.
Best,
John
Brandon Van Every
Oh, you're a hero. Thank you. I didn't even realize that gcc had an
option to force compilation as c++. But that works.
I'll file a bug report nonetheless.
Thanks,
John
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On 6/10/07, John Pretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, if I say: PROJECT(projectname CXX) in t
On Sunday 10 Jun 2007 8:41:42 pm Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On 6/10/07, John Pretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, if I say: PROJECT(projectname CXX) in the source, then it doesn't
> > generate a target for my .c files. The resulting makefiles don't even
> > try to compile the .c file.
>
> Hrm
On 6/10/07, John Pretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, if I say: PROJECT(projectname CXX) in the source, then it doesn't
generate a target for my .c files. The resulting makefiles don't even
try to compile the .c file.
Hrm, that sucks. I would look in the bug tracker about this. CMake
should
On 6/10/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/10/07, John Pretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I need to do is convince cmake that this .c source code is supposed
> to be compiled with a c++ compiler. If I rename the files (foo.c ->
> foo.cxx), it builds correctly, but again
On 6/10/07, John Pretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I need to do is convince cmake that this .c source code is supposed
to be compiled with a c++ compiler. If I rename the files (foo.c ->
foo.cxx), it builds correctly, but again, assume I'm not allowed to
modify the files.
You're saying PR
Hi,
I am evaluating the possibility of using cmake to build the code for a
c/c++ project I'm working on. The code is mostly legacy code, so for
the purposes of this question, please assume that I cannot change the
code or rename the files.
There is a c and c++ part to this codebase. The c
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2007-06-09 10:22+0400 Nikita V. Borodikhin wrote:
I frankly don't understand why that failed to work. Completely static
executables are possible with cmake. I know this because I made one
several
months ago as a temporary experiment.
They _were_ possible but on cmak
On Jun 10, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Clark J. Wang wrote:
On 6/10/07, Jack Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clark J. Wang wrote:
> Clark J. Wang wrote:
> > Another question:
> >
> > By default `make clean' does not know how to clean the 3rd-
party
> > package. How can I add an
On 6/10/07, Jack Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clark J. Wang wrote:
> Clark J. Wang wrote:
> > Another question:
> >
> > By default `make clean' does not know how to clean the 3rd-party
> > package. How can I add another command which will be run by `make
> clean'?
Currently, using cmake2.5, I am finding the lookup order of FIND_PATH /
FIND_LIBRARY to be counter productive, so I'm wondering if this is a bug
or intended behavior. If intended behavior, I would also want to know
what's the proper way around it.
Currently I have a project that may require some
14 matches
Mail list logo
