Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Roger Leigh (rleigh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-22 08:13:54

On 22/07/17 08:17, Daniela Engert via Boost wrote:
> Am 22.07.2017 um 06:38 schrieb degski via Boost:
>> On 22 July 2017 at 07:20, Steven Watanabe via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>> It seems (according to kitware
>> <>) that JOM
>> <> is the answer
>> to that.
> Yet another dependency - yay! With every suggestion on how to get around
> deficiencies of CMake when it comes to actually build (and test)
> something things are getting more complicated.

What CMake is providing here is choice and flexibility. If you want to
build on Windows with no extra tools, you can use nmake or
project/solution files. Both can be used directly from the command-line
(nmake, msbuild) with no use of a GUI, but both are a bit slow and have
no or limited parallelisation. You could use jom to speed up nmake
Makefiles. Or you can choose to generate build files for something else
entirely; personally on Windows I use Ninja due to its excellent
parallelisation and speed compared with the others. The choice is up to
the user to use an extra tool for speed, or the default tools for
convenience. I don't see this flexibility as a bad thing; it's one of
the big selling points for using CMake in the first place.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at