On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 22:59:45 +0100, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> But we are finally at a point where named modules can be experimented
> with. The timeline has been (roughly):
>
> - 2019 Feb: pushing to get dependency scanning possible (I have patches
> to CMake and GCC to proof-of
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:51:36 +, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Gcc
wrote:
> This would be an alternative to modules (seeing as how modules might
> become deprecated in the future).
If this is the case, no one has informed the stakeholders in the C++
committee (SG2, EWG, SG15, likely many
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 13:54:45 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 19:26 +0100, Ben Boeckel via Gcc wrote:
> > > In POSIX make, including GNU Make, if a command doesn't modify the
> > > modification time of the target then that target is not considere
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 07:59:00 -0800, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> Could your approach simultaneously be used to have better dependency
> information for Fortran modules? I feel like there’s at least some overlap
> there.
P1689 is also intended to be suitable for Fortran (CMake uses it for its
F
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 20:01:21 +, vspefs wrote:
> Supporting C++ modules is easy, but I don't think "properly" is possible for
> any
> build system under current circumstances. Industrial consensus needed for many
> subjects:
I believe CMake is the furthest in this regard (though I haven't
Hi,
I'm Ben and implemented modules support in CMake, authored P1689 itself,
its support in GCC, and helped wrangle its support into clang and MSVC.
I encourage you to read this paper:
https://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org/fortran-modules/fortran-modules.html
which describes the strategy CMake
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 07:53:51 +, vspefs wrote:
> By the way, what's stop us from having compiler options like
> `g++ -Rgcm.cache -Rsomewhere/else/gcm.cache` to specify CMI repo path, like
> `-I`
> for include paths? It could be useful for projects with complex folder
> structure, as build t
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 13:07:04 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 18:05 +0100, Ben Boeckel via Gcc wrote:
> > Note that one thing that is missing is ninja's `restat = 1` feature.
> > This "restats" the output for the associated rule (probably spelled
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 16:15:12 +, vspefs wrote:
> I read a few mails from the autoconf thread. I'll try to read all now.
> However,
> a maybe-off-topic-but-could-be-on-topic question: what exactly is the state of
> Autotools now? The whole Autotools build system seems to be on a very slow
>
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
