On 23. Jan, 2010, at 16:42 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Jed Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:44:43 +, Mateusz Loskot
>> wrote:
>>> Why it can not work, actually?
>>
>> C++ does name mangling so it's difficult to determine what the symbol
>> actually is (you have to know about various cl
Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:44:43 +, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> Why it can not work, actually?
>
> C++ does name mangling so it's difficult to determine what the symbol
> actually is (you have to know about various classes and templates that
> may be in scope), therefore the inter
Michael Wild wrote:
> IMHO the documentation should be clarified...
Just for records, there is bug report opened which is
related to my question:
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8758
Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> I'm trying to perform the following checks:
>
> check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
>
> or
>
> check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
>
> but it looks that both macros have troubles
> with resolving std:: namespace.
>
> The documentation is not very clear abo
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 10:33 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:24:30 +0100, "Marcel Loose"
wrote:
> > Partly true.
> > If the preprocessor symbol provides a generic name for a function,
which
> > may have different names on different platforms, it will still work.
> >
> > For exampl
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:24:30 +0100, "Marcel Loose" wrote:
> Partly true.
> If the preprocessor symbol provides a generic name for a function, which
> may have different names on different platforms, it will still work.
>
> For example.
>
> # define basename __xdg_basename
No.
It will *not* wo
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 13:47 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 12:07 , Marcel Loose wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:14 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> >> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 9:56 , Marcel Loose wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 06:52 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> On 2
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:55:20 +, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Yes, though I'd annoyingly keep my side that CXX variants of the macros
> would be useful and make C vs C++ separation more clear to user.
The problem is that the interface for the C++ variant *cannot* look like
check_function_exists, be
Michael Wild wrote:
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 17:17 , Jed Brown wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:03:27 +0100, Michael Wild
wrote:
But both of them just do a try_compile. I don't see where the
name-mangling comes in there... If the user wants to check for a
template, he has to instantiate the templat
Eric Noulard wrote:
2010/1/21 Mateusz Loskot :
The fact check_function_exists checks C function but not C++ free
function is a bit confusing.
That's true.
AFAIU, CMake is dedicated to build C++ source code,
However that's look false to me :-(
Perhaps I should be more precise, I meant
CM
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 17:17 , Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:03:27 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
>> But both of them just do a try_compile. I don't see where the
>> name-mangling comes in there... If the user wants to check for a
>> template, he has to instantiate the template,
>> e.g. ch
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:03:27 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> But both of them just do a try_compile. I don't see where the
> name-mangling comes in there... If the user wants to check for a
> template, he has to instantiate the template,
> e.g. check_cxx_function_exists("std::copy std::string::iterat
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 16:57 , Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:44:43 +, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> Why it can not work, actually?
>
> C++ does name mangling so it's difficult to determine what the symbol
> actually is (you have to know about various classes and templates that
> may be
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:44:43 +, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Why it can not work, actually?
C++ does name mangling so it's difficult to determine what the symbol
actually is (you have to know about various classes and templates that
may be in scope), therefore the interface would look a bit differ
Michael Wild wrote:
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 16:44 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Michael Wild wrote:
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to perform the following checks:
check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW) or
check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW) but it looks
2010/1/21 Mateusz Loskot :
> The fact check_function_exists checks C function but not C++ free
> function is a bit confusing.
That's true.
> AFAIU, CMake is dedicated to build C++ source code,
However that's look false to me :-(
> so I suppose many users may expect it works
> well for both C a
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 16:44 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Michael Wild wrote:
>> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm trying to perform the following checks:
>>> check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
>>> or
>>> check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
>>> but it lo
Michael Wild wrote:
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to perform the following checks:
check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
or
check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
but it looks that both macros have troubles with resolving std::
namespace.
The
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 12:07 , Marcel Loose wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:14 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
>> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 9:56 , Marcel Loose wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 06:52 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Hi,
>
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:14 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 9:56 , Marcel Loose wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 06:52 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> >> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm trying to perform the following checks:
> >
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 9:56 , Marcel Loose wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 06:52 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
>> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to perform the following checks:
>>>
>>> check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> ch
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 06:52 +0100, Michael Wild wrote:
> On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to perform the following checks:
> >
> > check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
> >
> > or
> >
> > check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
> >
> > bu
On 21. Jan, 2010, at 24:55 , Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to perform the following checks:
>
> check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
>
> or
>
> check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
>
> but it looks that both macros have troubles
> with resolving std:: namespace.
>
>
Hi,
I'm trying to perform the following checks:
check_function_exists(std::pow HAVE_POW)
or
check_symbol_exists(std::pow cmath HAVE_POW)
but it looks that both macros have troubles
with resolving std:: namespace.
The documentation is not very clear about that.
Or I should stick to try_compil
24 matches
Mail list logo
