Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Huh? I'm not aware of that as a limitation - you *do* need the objects >> in the static library to be >> position-independant or otherwise compiled as objects to go into a >> shared library. > > Thats ok on linux, to get it working on 64 bit syst

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

On 23.11.08 20:56:24, James Mansion wrote: > Andreas Pakulat wrote: >> This is Ok for building an executable, but linking a static lib into a >> shared lib is completely unportable and not supported on all operating >> systems that cmake supports. Thats why its not done. >> > Huh? I'm not aware

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

I corrected the directory name and tried it again. I get the same results. Martin Costabel wrote: Tron Thomas wrote: [] 1/ 1 Testing TestRunnerCould not find executable TestRunner.app/Content/MacOS/TestRunner Looked in the following places: TestRunner.app/Content/MacOS/Te

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

I filed bug 8139 against the issue. I tried using the get_target_property command and that did not fix the problem. Bill Hoffman wrote: Tron Thomas wrote: I tried that originally, and it does not work. When add_executable is used to create an application bundle on MacOS X, it does not simpl

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > I think Oscar is wrong here: > >>A convenience library works as an object file at link time: it is >>included on the final executable as any other object file. > > Or at least, that's an unnecessarily limited view. The terminology is > debatable

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

Andreas Pakulat wrote: This is Ok for building an executable, but linking a static lib into a shared lib is completely unportable and not supported on all operating systems that cmake supports. Thats why its not done. Huh? I'm not aware of that as a limitation - you *do* need the objects in

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

On 2008-11-23 12:51+0100 Hendrik Sattler wrote: Am Sunday 23 November 2008 10:35:03 schrieb Andreas Pakulat: On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not dependi

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

Tron Thomas wrote: I tried that originally, and it does not work. When add_executable is used to create an application bundle on MacOS X, it does not simple build an executable program. It creates an entire directory structure that bundles up the exectuable. CTest does not seem to understand

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

I tried that originally, and it does not work. When add_executable is used to create an application bundle on MacOS X, it does not simple build an executable program. It creates an entire directory structure that bundles up the exectuable. CTest does not seem to understand how to deal with t

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

Tron Thomas wrote: [] 1/ 1 Testing TestRunnerCould not find executable TestRunner.app/Content/MacOS/TestRunner Looked in the following places: TestRunner.app/Content/MacOS/TestRunner Perhaps writing "Contents" instead of "Content" might help? -- Martin _

Re: [CMake] FindBoost (once again...)

On 23.11.08 18:58:57, Christian Ehrlicher wrote: > Andreas Pakulat schrieb: >> On 23.11.08 14:43:19, Christian Ehrlicher wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> FindBoost does not work for me on windows because of a wrong pathname: >>> >>> if (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) >>> set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost_${_

Re: [CMake] FindBoost (once again...)

Andreas Pakulat schrieb: On 23.11.08 14:43:19, Christian Ehrlicher wrote: Hi, FindBoost does not work for me on windows because of a wrong pathname: if (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost_${_boost_VER}) else (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) set(_boost_PATH_SUF

Re: [CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

Tron Thomas wrote: On Mac OS X, I want to build a graphical test application to be added as a test in a project configured by CMake. However, I am unable to add this application as a test in CMake because it Mac OS X builds the program as an application bundle, and CMake is unable to find the

Re: [CMake] FindBoost (once again...)

On 23.11.08 14:43:19, Christian Ehrlicher wrote: > Hi, > > FindBoost does not work for me on windows because of a wrong pathname: > > if (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) > set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost_${_boost_VER}) > else (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) > set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost-${_b

[CMake] Can't run Cocoa test application in CTest

On Mac OS X, I want to build a graphical test application to be added as a test in a project configured by CMake. However, I am unable to add this application as a test in CMake because it Mac OS X builds the program as an application bundle, and CMake is unable to find the correct path to the

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM, cyril_wobow wrote: Robert Dailey a écrit : On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Like a ... python front end ? Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable as a

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Le Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:43:53 +0100, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Robert Dailey a écrit : > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Like a ... python front end ? > > > > Seriously, cmake is really, real

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Robert Dailey a écrit : On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Like a ... python front end ? Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable as a scripting language... I would agree with you in

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Le Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:15:06 +1100, "Jack Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > hi rob, > > > Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() > > command? > > i think this could be the most noticed feature of cmake (in the five > minute test). as noted, in other posts, yo

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like a ... python front end ? > > Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable > as a scripting language... > I would agree with you in that CMake isn't perfect and it does have a lot of issue

Re: [CMake] [Cdash] Not receiving e-mail for failed test?

Le Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:18:37 -0500, Julien Jomier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Eric, > > CDash doesn't send an email if a test has been failing twice (or > more) in a row to avoid sending duplicate emails. > For instance, in your case, this test was failing the previous night, > therefore you

[CMake] FindBoost (once again...)

Hi, FindBoost does not work for me on windows because of a wrong pathname: if (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost_${_boost_VER}) else (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) set(_boost_PATH_SUFFIX boost-${_boost_VER}) endif (WIN32 AND NOT CYGWIN) I installed boo

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

Am Sunday 23 November 2008 10:35:03 schrieb Andreas Pakulat: > On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > > Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I > > understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not depending > > on external apps, but it could be a

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Jack Andrews a écrit : hi rob, Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() command? i think this could be the most noticed feature of cmake (in the five minute test). as noted, in other posts, you don't have to any more. but i've been thinking of creating anot

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I > understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not depending > on external apps, but it could be a transient solution until full > fledged support for convenience libs

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I > understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not depending > on external apps, but it could be a transient solution until full > fledged support for convenience libs

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not depending on external apps, but it could be a transient solution until full fledged support for convenience libs is added into cmake. Has anybody already made such a lib

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

On 23.11.08 08:53:44, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > Isn't a static lib still better than nothing? I was thinking at the > same thing this morning - why not use static libs and simply don't > install them. > > I agree, this still has the problem of missing lib dependencies that > you have to solve b