Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I've seen this but haven't had time to dig in and solve it yet. CPU usage drops to zero and the thing just sits there Yes, those are the symptoms I'm seeing

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

Hi Sergey , Based on the suggestions from the cmake mailing list, I inserted the following lines in the FindBoost.cmake file to help print out what the filename of the libraries that cmake would be looking for: MESSAGE (STATUS "${Boost_LIB_PREFIX}boost_$ {COMPONENT}${_boost_COMPILER}${_boost_MULT

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

Beman Dawes wrote: > > When they want to use a library, they expect to give their IDE's > Property Manager a single "Additional Libraries Directories" path, and > then linking to the correct variant "just works". The idea of having to > specify a different path for each build variant wouldn't fly.

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> >> Doug, you need to explain this to us Windows developers who don't have a >> clue as to how to manage multiple build variants of libraries without name >> mangling. >> >> > I don't think it

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:57 AM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Don't mangle library names. Those very few users who need to build > >

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

Beman Dawes wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM, troy d. straszheim > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > David Abrahams wrote: > > Beman Dawes wrote: > > > I thought cmake was supposed to be robust. This is very > discouragi

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >> >>> >>> I thought cmake was supposed to be robust. This is very discouraging; it >>> implies cmake developers are only targeting folks who are cmake experts. >>> >>> I

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

Beman Dawes wrote: Doug, you need to explain this to us Windows developers who don't have a clue as to how to manage multiple build variants of libraries without name mangling. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to do so. Again, CMake can mangle, or not. FWIW, I'm working on a co

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

David Abrahams wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: I thought cmake was supposed to be robust. This is very discouraging; it implies cmake developers are only targeting folks who are cmake experts. Is it possible to disable this misfeature? I think Troy is saying that we get to control what gets cached

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

Hi Sergey, Following is the compiler information. I have a a script that helps me clean up the CMakeFiles/ and CMakeCache.txt [EMAIL PROTECTED] hpx]$ cmake . -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU -- The C compiler identification is GNU -- Check for working CXX compiler: /export/apps/compilers

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

Beman Dawes wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Don't mangle library names. Those very few users who need to build > with multiple compilers will just keep separate build/install > directories. People

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM, troy d. straszheim < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Personally I find the embedding

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

Beman Dawes wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:31 PM, troy d. straszheim > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > David Abrahams wrote: > > troy d straszheim wrote: > > Things look good. So... Dave is it possible you were doing > co

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:31 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> troy d straszheim wrote: >> >> Things look good. So... Dave is it possible you were doing >>> configuration of cmake in a build directory that had failed >>> configuration once? >>> >> >

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > troy d straszheim wrote: > > > > > Things look good. So... Dave is it possible you were doing > > configuration of cmake in a build directory that had failed > > configuration once? > Hum... That explains failures I've