Hi, I'm wondering if anyone has had particularly good experiences with any meta-build system (cmake, etc) in the following circumstances:
I will have a large codebase which consists of some generic files and some processor specific files. (I'm not worried about OS environent stuff like "has vsnprintf?" that configure deals with.) In addition, it'd be nice to be able to have options like "debugging", "release", "grof-compiled", etc, similar to procesor specification. I need to be able to select the appropriate files for a given build and compile them together to form an executable. It would be preferrable if all object files and executables could coexist (because it's a C++ template heavy source-base that means individual files compile relatively slowly, so it'dbe preferrable only to recompile if the source has actually changed) using directories or naming conventions. I've been doing some reading about things like cmake and SCons but most strike me as having "built-in logic for their normal way of doing things and are relatively clunky if you specify something different". (Incidentally, when I say meta-build system I mean that I don't mind if it builds things directly or if it outputs makefiles that can be invoked.) Does anyone have any experiences of using any tool for this kind of purpose? (One option would be to just have a static makefile and then do some include-path hackery to select processor specific directories to pick a specific versions of files depending on options and then rely on ccache to pick up the correct object file from the cache rather than recompiling. But that feels like a hack for avoiding having a more expressive build system.) Many thanks for sharing any experiences, -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
