chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] CMake testing


From: Graham Fawcett
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] CMake testing
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:32:23 -0400

On 10/21/05, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi, folks!
>
> Attached is the CMakeLists.txt file from Patrick Brannan.
> I would be grateful if some people could give it a try
> on Windows (with/without mingw) - possibly from a
> freshly unpacked tarball.

Seems to work with the free MSVC tools. I'd never used CMake before,
and it took a bit of wrangling. Here are some rough notes from my
experience.

Running `cmake -G "NMake Makefiles"` didn't Just Work. I used
cmakesetup.exe, which is a GUI for writing a configuration cache.
Before running this, I had to add the MSVC toolchain to my PATH. I
don't normally have them on PATH; and without them, cmakesetup
wouldn't work properly. IOW, you cannot just run cmakesetup from the
Start..Programs menu unless you have your tools on the PATH. Note that
`cmake -G "NMake Makefiles"` did not work even when my tools were on
the path.

After that, cmakesetup ran fine. I had to specify
EXECUTABLE_OUTPUT_PATH and LIBRARY_OUTPUT_PATH; I also built the
binaries in the source directory. Trying to specify a different output
directory seemed to cause problems; it looked like the cache was
written to the build directory rather than the source directory when I
tried this.

In cmakesetup.exe, you have to click "Configure" twice; once, then set
the two variables, then again. Finally, press OK and back to the
console; and "nmake" worked as expected.

I'd never touched CMake before, so I probably made 50-100 newbie mistakes.

Testing the built binaries: csi and csc worked fine. Chicken_setup
worked, but this is MSVC-land, and the lack of gzip et. al. means that
chicken_setup usually fails to build anything. (These GNU-toolchain
dependencies are something I would *love* to see fixed for the MSVC
platform, if I had my two cents, or enough time to tackle it!).

Graham




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]