Subject: Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 08:24:52
On 7/27/2017 1:12 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 7/26/17 7:28 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> But the case I brought up is that there is no "build' of the library,
>> since it is header only, but the library needs to execute its tests
>> using CMake. That appears to me to be different from your case.
> Well, there is the safe numerics library which has CMake tests and is
> header only. It's much simpler than the serialization library.
> You'll find a few CMakeLists.txt files in different places like
> include/example/test etc. Not that much unlike bjam where one has jam
> files in test, example, etc.
>> So you are saying that even when their is no actual library to be
>> built, as is the case with a header only library, you still specify a
>> CMakeLists.txt file as if you were building a library ?
> yep - just like for bjam you specify a jam file in the test directory,
> for CMake you specifiy a CMakeLists.txt file in the test directory.
Great, thanks !
>>> This is a serious short coming of CMake. Given this it's a mystery
>>> that CMake has been successful. But then then look at all the
>>> competition it's ever worse!!! To addressed this, I wrote a walk
>>> through in the boost library inclubator to help library developers
>>> get started with CMake. It uses on the safe numerics library CMake
>>> as an example. This example/narrative addresses only header-only files.
>> Would you please give a URL ?
> I'm really disappointed you couldn't find this. It recently was
> reviewed for inclusion in boost and accepted!
You said you wrote a walk through in the boost library incubator and I
asked for the URL of the walk through. You gave me a link to your safe
numerics library on github. I have found
http://blincubator.com/tools_cmak/. I will read this.
>> Do you know if CMake has a way of setting usage requirements for all
>> builds in a directory ? That is the effect of the project rule in
>> Boost Build when running tests. It is very useful and means that you
>> do not have to repeat a bunch of usage requirements for each and every
> Right. Every build system has to address this problem.
> In bjam I can make a "rule" which passes "usage requirements".
You do not have to make a rule since the builtin "project" rule already
does this for you.
> In CMake I make a "function" which passes arguments.
So CMake has no way built-in command to say "here are the usage
requirements for every target in this directory" other than to have to
write a "function" each time ? That seems a bit poor.
> Similar but different. For some reason every build system designer
> seems to fancy himself a language designer and what we get is some
> oddball/irregular "language" for describing the "build". When it barely
> works the release and then start patching it up to so it can be made to
> work. The result is what we have to today. An assortment of build
> languages none of which are very good. This is addressed by inventing a
> NEW build language which isn't really any better than the one it's meant
> to replace. This happens again and again - this is how we came to be
> where we are today.
>> I will look at your serialization CMake code and I assume the other
>> working example is for your Safe Numerics library, so I will look at
>> that also. Thanks !
> There are other examples already in boost - made by people who know more
> about CMake than I do. (I hate wasting time on this kind of stuff).
> Unfortunately, many of these examples seem to be more elaborate than
> necessary and end up totally obscuring that which starts out simple. Its
> a chronic programmer disease to start with something understandable
> which works and then try to make it perfect there by mucking it up.
> Hollywood plastic surgeries have the exact same problem.
>>> I've got a lot to say about this and I will be giving a presentation
>>> on the subject at CPPCon 2017 for anyone who might be interested.
>>> That is the both of you.
>> I did not realize I was a split personality <g>.
> Hmmmm - It didn't occur to me that you might be going to CPPCon. So I
> guess I'll plan for three then.
No I don't go to CPPCon but if you can get programmers to create better
documentation by your talk there I am all for it.