On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
> FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
> 3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
>
> It didn't work. Here ar
On 13.04.08 09:08:08, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2008-04-13 11:04+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>
>> [...]I'll be the first one to try out MinGW which comes with gcc 4.x [...]
>
> The MinGW team officially releases their packages at SourceForge. From
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?gro
On 2008-04-13 11:04+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
[...]I'll be the first one to try out MinGW which comes with gcc 4.x [...]
The MinGW team officially releases their packages at SourceForge. From
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435&package_id=241304
there is a gcc 4.3.0 r
EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Stephan Tolksdorf
Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. April 2008 12:34
An: CMake ML
Betreff: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake updated on the bugtracker
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>&
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
That's fine, but then somebody else with access to windows should
volunteer to do that testing since MinGW is an extremely important platform.
Finally, from our PLplot experience, M
On 12.04.08 11:18:31, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
> FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
> 3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
>
> It didn't work. Here are the changes. Sorry, but I don't
On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>>
>> My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
>> projects such as boost or KDE, they still need some time. Thats why
>> I won't do work on getting KDevelop4 working on MinGW -
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And just to add some more info about boost:
>
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/more/getting_started/windows.html#identify-your-toolset
>
> Under the "Toolset" column is "gcc" with the following description:
> gcc
--
Mike Jackson Senior Research Engineer
Innovative Management & Technology Services
On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
projects such as boost or KDE, th
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
projects such as boost or KDE, they still need some time. Thats why
I won't do work on getting KDevelop4 working on MinGW - at least not
without someone paying for it.
That's
Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
It didn't work. Here are the changes. Sorry, but I don't have a decent
diff generator on this windows box so
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11.04.08 11:24:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> > > diff of those ne
On 11.04.08 11:24:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> > diff of those needed changes. With those changes cmake properly finds
> > the static libs if I prov
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> diff of those needed changes. With those changes cmake properly finds
> the static libs if I provide the Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS and it finds the
>
On 08.04.08 16:43:30, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > New version uploaded.
>
> I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
> shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
> FindBoost.cma
On 08.04.08 16:43:30, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > New version uploaded.
>
> I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
> shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
> FindBoost.cma
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> New version uploaded.
I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
FindBoost.cmake; the diff against "v9" from the bug tracker follow
On 08.04.08 09:04:52, Sören Freudiger wrote:
> Hi out there
> The new macro is pretty nice.
> But one section is still missing:
>
> IF (MSVC90)
> SET (_boost_COMPILER "-vc90")
> ENDIF(MSVC90)
Aah, right. thx. Totally forgot that one's got released already :)
> And the option for the new
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Andreas Pakulat
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. April 2008 01:23
An: cmake@cmake.org
Betreff: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake updated on the bugtracker
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Hi,
as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
I came to different solution. I
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> > can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
> I came to different solution. I have to b
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> > can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
> I came to different solution. I have to b
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
I came to different solution. I have to build statically with some libraries
(including boost),
Hi,
as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> See FindBoost_v7.cmake on
> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=6257 for the latest
> version, which should be completely compat
On 05.04.08 21:37:43, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 05.04.08 14:13:14, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> > Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> >> On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> >>> David Thulson wrote:
> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> be released:
>
> >>
On 05.04.08 14:13:14, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>> David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
wil
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> David Thulson wrote:
>> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
>> be released:
>>
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>>
>> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
>> will look
On 02.04.08 19:30:21, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> Ok, I give in. Do you mind separating the loop into two so its easier to
>> see whats going on and we don't have two use-less cache variables? Then
>> I'll apply what you send to kdevplatform and add a new version to the
>> c
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Ok, I give in. Do you mind separating the loop into two so its easier to
see whats going on and we don't have two use-less cache variables? Then
I'll apply what you send to kdevplatform and add a new version to the
cmake bugreport.
Done. I was resisting that because... w
On 02.04.08 16:47:34, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also note that t
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't
On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't think
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't think they should appear
in it.
Apart from that, you're iterating ove
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also note that those variables you use in
>> find_path are automatically cached and I don't think they should appear
>> in it.
>>
>> Apart from that, you're iterating over all te
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately C
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
>> of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
>> v2.
>>
>> I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's bugtracker
doesn't allow to do that.
Last but not least: Is th
On 28.03.08 18:16:50, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008 18:05:40 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> > > It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> > > be released:
> > >
> > > http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> David Thulson wrote:
>> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
>> be released:
>>
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>>
>> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
>> will look
On Friday 28 March 2008 18:05:40 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> > It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> > be released:
> >
> > http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
> >
> > And it at least appears that the late
On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> be released:
>
> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>
> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
> will look for 1.35. Is that right?
David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
will look for 1.35. Is that right? The version included in the CMake
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
will look for 1.35. Is that right? The version included in the CMake
2.6.0 Beta does not re
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's bugtracker
doesn't allow to do that.
Last but not least: Is there any chance of getting
45 matches
Mail list logo
