Re: [Chicken-hackers] anybody good with cmake?

[felix winkelmann]

On 8/15/07, Brandon Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Just add the .o file.  Recent Chicken versions can take them directly.

You mean "recent CMake versions", right?

>  That's how .o recompilation is avoided for the PCRE libraries.  The
> ability to take .o files directly is not documented anywhere, the docs
> are indeed woefully substandard on this kind of conceptual issue.
> Nevertheless, it can be done and the Chicken build itself already has
> examples of it happening.

Ok.

>
>
> The CMake build isn't broken; rather, you've been trying to add new
> capabilities to it.  Happy to advise you on that, as I did above, but
> your projects are your projects.

Very good.

>
> You'd get a lot more out of me if instead of threatening to abandon
> CMake, you showed commitment to using and understanding CMake.  Last I
> checked you were using it at work; what happened with that?

I am not and never was planning to abandon CMake. I don't know
how you come to that conclusion. And I'm not threatening anybody,
at least not conciously.

I used it for simple C++ projects. CMake covers that pretty good. As I a
said: it's when you want to do things slightly differently, when the
workarounds start to crop up.

>
> Just because you tried to use CMake CVS for bleeding edge ASM stuff,
> doesn't make release versions of CMake buggy.  CVS has bugs in it,
> that's what it's there for, same as Chicken.

No, the bugs I am talking about are unneeded rebuilds on Linux, for example.
But that has gotten better. That the ASM stuff doesn't work right away is
something that I can accept.


cheers,
felix