On 06/27/2011 07:07 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Michael Hertling wrote:
>
>> SET_SOURCE_FILES_PROPERTIES(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/c89.c
>> PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS ${CMAKE_C_DIALECT_C89})
>> SET_SOURCE_FILES_PROPERTIES(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/c99.c
>> PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS ${CMAKE_C_DIALECT_C99}
On 06/27/2011 06:34 PM, Todd Gamblin wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Michael Hertling wrote:
>
>> On 06/23/2011 06:20 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:50, Michael Hertling wrote:
>>>
You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
>>>
>>>
>>> This is already a probl
On 06/26/2011 04:12 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> On 25/06/2011 07:30, "Michael Hertling" wrote:
>
>> On 06/24/2011 04:16 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>>> I think the appropriate solution here is a project-specific dialect
>>> flag -
>>> perhaps one taking options in the GNU format since it seems most
>
On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 18:40:19 schrieb Todd Gamblin:
>>
>>
>> I *think* Michael's concern here is that if you have a project that uses
>> C99, it should fail as fast as possible, e.g. when it knows that the
>> detected/provided compiler
Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 18:40:19 schrieb Todd Gamblin:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> > On 25/06/2011 07:30, "Michael Hertling" wrote:
> >> On 06/24/2011 04:16 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> >>> I think the appropriate solution here is a project-specific dialect
> >>> flag -
>
Michael Hertling wrote:
> SET_SOURCE_FILES_PROPERTIES(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/c89.c
> PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS ${CMAKE_C_DIALECT_C89})
> SET_SOURCE_FILES_PROPERTIES(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/c99.c
> PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS ${CMAKE_C_DIALECT_C99})
> ADD_LIBRARY(c89 c89.c)
> ADD_LIBRARY(c99 c99.c)
>
On Jun 26, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> On 25/06/2011 07:30, "Michael Hertling" wrote:
>
>> On 06/24/2011 04:16 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>>> I think the appropriate solution here is a project-specific dialect
>>> flag -
>>> perhaps one taking options in the GNU format since it seems
On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Michael Hertling wrote:
> On 06/23/2011 06:20 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:50, Michael Hertling wrote:
>>
>>> You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
>>
>>
>> This is already a problem. C99 introduces new keywords (e.g. restrict) and
On 25/06/2011 07:30, "Michael Hertling" wrote:
>On 06/24/2011 04:16 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> I think the appropriate solution here is a project-specific dialect
>>flag -
>> perhaps one taking options in the GNU format since it seems most
>>familiar.
>> One could perhaps generalise this further
Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 08:30:21 schrieb Michael Hertling:
> On 06/23/2011 06:20 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:50, Michael Hertling
wrote:
> >> You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
> >
> > This is already a problem. C99 introduces new keywords (e.g. restrict)
On 06/24/2011 12:32 AM, Todd Gamblin wrote:
> Thanks to Sean and Jed for useful counterexamples.
>
> A few more points:
>
> On Jun 23, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Michael Hertling wrote:
>
>> While I can understand your point, I'm of a different opinion: In the
>> end, it's the responsibility of the user
On 06/23/2011 06:20 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:50, Michael Hertling wrote:
>
>> You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
>
>
> This is already a problem. C99 introduces new keywords (e.g. restrict) and
> removes implicit int. It is entirely possible for part of a p
On 06/24/2011 04:16 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 23:32, "Todd Gamblin" wrote:
>> You could do this, but it seems like a lot of work for the developer AND
>> the user compared to my suggestion of just having a variable for the
>> compiler-specific C99 flags, or some similar mechanism.
On 23/06/2011 23:32, "Todd Gamblin" wrote:
>You could do this, but it seems like a lot of work for the developer AND
>the user compared to my suggestion of just having a variable for the
>compiler-specific C99 flags, or some similar mechanism. We know an awful
>lot of other things about compiler
Thanks to Sean and Jed for useful counterexamples.
A few more points:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Michael Hertling wrote:
> While I can understand your point, I'm of a different opinion: In the
> end, it's the responsibility of the user to provide the project with a
> suitable compiler.
If it'
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:20:46 +0200, Jed Brown said:
>> You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
>
>
>This is already a problem. C99 introduces new keywords (e.g. restrict) and
>removes implicit int. It is entirely possible for part of a project to
>include C89-conforming legacy code that is
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:50, Michael Hertling wrote:
> You need to use a C99 compiler for your project
This is already a problem. C99 introduces new keywords (e.g. restrict) and
removes implicit int. It is entirely possible for part of a project to
include C89-conforming legacy code that is n
On 06/23/2011 05:09 AM, Todd Gamblin wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Michael Hertling wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't a simple
>>
>> CC="gcc -std=c99" cmake
>>
>> for the initial configuration be an appropriate solution?
>
> I would say no, because whether or not the project is written in C99 or not
On Jun 22, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Michael Hertling wrote:
> Wouldn't a simple
>
> CC="gcc -std=c99" cmake
>
> for the initial configuration be an appropriate solution?
I would say no, because whether or not the project is written in C99 or not
isn't something the caller of cmake should have to kno
On 06/22/2011 09:32 PM, Todd Gamblin wrote:
> Is there a good cross-platform way to enable C99 in a CMake project right
> now? You can obviously do this:
>
> set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-std=c99")
>
> However, that's the GNU way to enable C99, and other compilers do it
> differently. It would be
Done.
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12300
On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Sean McBride wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:32:55 -0700, Todd Gamblin said:
>
>> Is there a good cross-platform way to enable C99 in a CMake project
>> right now? You can obviously do this:
>>
>> set(CMAKE_C_
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:32:55 -0700, Todd Gamblin said:
>Is there a good cross-platform way to enable C99 in a CMake project
>right now? You can obviously do this:
>
> set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-std=c99")
>
>However, that's the GNU way to enable C99, and other compilers do it
>differently. It woul
Is there a good cross-platform way to enable C99 in a CMake project right now?
You can obviously do this:
set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-std=c99")
However, that's the GNU way to enable C99, and other compilers do it
differently. It would be nice if there were some flags for this set for you in
23 matches
Mail list logo
