Re: [CMake] CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR overwritten by CMake Fortran language support

Hi Alan, I have no time today to really dig into the output, but while CMAKE_HOMEDIRECTORY points to the right directory, the outcome is the same: the "wrong" information file gets loaded. I will send the detailed output from cmake --trace in a separate mail (> 0.5 MB). Regards, Arjen On 2010

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

On 28. Mar, 2010, at 18:09 , Fred Fred wrote: > [snip] > What I do not understand is why would cmake use non ASCII characters? Since > my path is in ASCII (at least I hope that a mkdir command with > non-accentuated characters does not generate non ASCII paths!) and I checked > all the paths

[CMake] Add .la files to shared lib

I am trying to compile shared lib dynamically linked with one set of libs and statically with anoter. Static libs are provided by third party Probably Ihave to define new target with IMPORTED flag for each .la file, but how to add them to final shared library file? ___

Re: [CMake] Using target_link_libraries

Turns out it was win32 versus the native cygwin conflicting, not missing link libraries. I had to modify the Find scripts to find cygwin or win32 with -mnocygwin. Thanks -Colin ___ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source project

Re: [CMake] Annoyances with cmake vs qmake

Am Sonntag 28 März 2010 21:06:10 schrieb Ruben Van Boxem: > Since qmake is pretty mouldy (I mean, not probable to be updated anytime > soon with new functionality), I decided to try cmake and its colourful > build process. But if you ever want to leave the very narrow path of what qmake is suppos

Re: [CMake] Annoyances with cmake vs qmake

2010/3/28 Ruben Van Boxem : Hi Ruben, > 2) A second point, and this has been brought up before on this list, several > times even. With qmake: > qmake > make debug //produces debug binaries > make release //produces release binaries > make all //produces both > make distclean //cleans out *most* o

[CMake] Annoyances with cmake vs qmake

Hi all, Since qmake is pretty mouldy (I mean, not probable to be updated anytime soon with new functionality), I decided to try cmake and its colourful build process. When experimenting with qmake, I "ported" libogg, libvorbis and libflac to a qmake build system and it worked pretty easily, witho

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

Am Sonntag 28 März 2010 13:10:17 schrieb Michael Wild: > The easy fix? Only use ASCII characters in your path names... > > The real fix would be to port CMake to fully support UTF-16/32: a huge > undertaking, with any software. Especially, since wchar_t is not > guaranteed to be large enough to

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

> Subject: Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support? > From: them...@gmail.com > Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:10:17 +0200 > CC: stan1...@hotmail.fr; cmake@cmake.org > To: eric.noul...@gmail.com > > > On 28. Mar, 2010, at 12:37 , Eric Noulard wrote: > > > 2010/3/28 Fred Fred : > >> This list

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

On 3/28/2010 5:14 AM, Fred Fred wrote: This list seems not to be really active and I did not receive any help since I posted this one week ago. BTW this issue has been open on Mantis more than 3 months ago and seems still to be open! So is there really anybody trying to help on cmake?? If the d

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

On Sunday 28 March 2010, Eric Noulard wrote: > 2010/3/28 Fred Fred : > > This list seems not to be really active > > You are kidding right? > Did you check the past 3 years archive ? > > > and I did not receive any help since I posted this one week ago. > > BTW this issue has been open on Mantis mo

[CMake] splitting compilation into steps

Hi CMakers, I am trying to use CMake with llvm-gcc compiler ( http://llvm.org/cmds/llvmgcc.html) and want to split the compilation into three steps: 1. Compile the C/C++ source code into LLVM bitcode using llvm-gcc with the command llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -o -c 2. Compile bitcode into assembly lan

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

On 28. Mar, 2010, at 12:37 , Eric Noulard wrote: > 2010/3/28 Fred Fred : >> This list seems not to be really active > > You are kidding right? > Did you check the past 3 years archive ? Two years worth of messages in my mailbox: 16422... > >> and I did not receive any help since I posted this

Re: [CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

2010/3/28 Fred Fred : > This list seems not to be really active You are kidding right? Did you check the past 3 years archive ? > and I did not receive any help since I posted this one week ago. > BTW this issue has been open on Mantis more than > 3 months ago and seems still to be open! I'm sur

[CMake] Is there really any cmake support?

This list seems not to be really active and I did not receive any help since I posted this one week ago. BTW this issue has been open on Mantis more than 3 months ago and seems still to be open! So is there really anybody trying to help on cmake?? From: stan1...@hotmail.fr To: cmake@cmake.org

Re: [CMake] Using target_link_libraries

On 28. Mar, 2010, at 1:57 , Colin Michael Diesh wrote: > Hey, I was trying to use the TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES in a CMakeLists.txt file > but the linking doesn't end up working. I am using cygwin and CMake 2.6.4 > > Currently, I am having trouble with the OpenGL libraries. It links GLUT but > not

Re: [CMake] find_library and mac os x SDKs

On 28. Mar, 2010, at 3:25 , Simmons, Aaron wrote: >> What I don't understand is this: Why do you want to force the SDK? Shouldn't >> this be the worry of the person doing the build? >> >> If I download some open-source software and then build it for myself, >> I don't want to be forced in usin