I finally got it working. Here's a summary of my findings in case
anybody finds this useful. (I think this will ultimately be useful
info in trying to build a proper Android generator for CMake.)
- I ditched Cygwin. (But I learned that CMake later on for Unix
Makefiles complains about Cygwin sh.ex
On 6/13/2014 2:15 PM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Hi,
why was the list id header in this last mail changed to "Cross-Platform
Make http://cmake.public.kitware.com>>"?
I just imagine the total time for everyone to adapt their filter rules...
Regards
HS
We upgraded mailman to get around the Yahoo DM
As a last note, I think that this warning behavior should be changed. Now
that I've figured things out, I have 5 total occurrences of
COMPILE_DEFINITIONS_something in my entire project (all CMake files) and I
received 82 warnings.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jake wrote:
> Nevermind, answer
Nevermind, answered my own question. Setting CMP0043 to new at the
beginning of the main file and then push/popping and setting to old where
needed produced no warnings.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Nils Gladitz wrote:
> On 13.06.2014 18:32, Jake wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I upgraded to 3.0 r
Thanks Nils,
That worked, but what is strange is that our cmake_minimum_required is set
to 2.6, so I would think that it would not affect CMP0043 settings.
Next question, does CMP0043 affect more than COMPILE_DEFINITIONS_x, or does
the policy for CMP0043 need to be set? I was getting warnings for
On 13.06.2014 18:32, Jake wrote:
Hello,
I upgraded to 3.0 recently and tried to generate build files for a
project (https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/). I noticed the new warning
about CMP0043 and have been trying to fix, but setting the policy to
OLD, even at the beginning of CMakeLists.txt doe
Hello,
I upgraded to 3.0 recently and tried to generate build files for a project (
https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/). I noticed the new warning about CMP0043
and have been trying to fix, but setting the policy to OLD, even at the
beginning of CMakeLists.txt doesn't seem to do anything. Is this a b
One of my co-workers just did a build where they ran cmake with the option
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebugInfo Of course what was obviously meant was
RelWithDbgInfo. Because of this incorrect option the build was not as
expected, but it took a while to figure out why it failed. Of course once
On 06/13/2014 01:42 PM, Anders Lindgren wrote:
So, I suggest adding a INTERFACE_LINK_OPTIONS target property.
There is work in progress for this:
https://github.com/swwilso1/CMake/tree/link-options-command
Discussion:
http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/2014-June/010623.html
Hi Andres.
I cannot comment on the property request itself, but you should be able to
work around its absence by using `-` instead of `/` to introduce the linker
option - the Visual Studio tools understand both, AFAIK.
Petr
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Anders Lindgren wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I h
Hi!
I have a third party-library only available in Release flavor. When
building a Debug configuration, I need to pass the option
/NODEFAULTLIB:libcmt to the Visual Studio linker.
I have been playing around with the new target interface system. However,
I'm missing a way for a library to specify
On 06/13/2014 11:49 AM, Stefan Eilemann wrote:
A global flag was not implemented, but would be a nice touch. I am not familiar
enough with CMake to know how this would look like (option?) nor how to start
implementing it. Any takers?
I'm also disappointed by the lack of feedback wrt 3.0 merge.
Stefan Eilemann wrote:
>
> On 13. Jun 2014, at 5:09, J Decker
> wrote:
>
>> Did this make it to 3.0 release? Could it have been implemented as more
>> of a global flag so I don't have to modify every single install() I have?
>
> A global flag was not implemented, but would be a nice touch. I
On 13. Jun 2014, at 5:09, J Decker wrote:
> Did this make it to 3.0 release? Could it have been implemented as more of
> a global flag so I don't have to modify every single install() I have?
A global flag was not implemented, but would be a nice touch. I am not familiar
enough with CMake t
I do not think so: there have been no activity on the ticket, no
answer on the mailing list since RC3 :-(
Maybe there is a better way than the ML or the bug tracker to get a
status update from CMake's team?
Cheers,
Manu
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:09 AM, J Decker wrote:
> Did this make it to 3.0
15 matches
Mail list logo
