Re: Boost/CMake

From: Boris Kolpackov (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-22 13:50:13

Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> For the user audience who needs to build something with a specific
> toolset, using specific options, that's not an issue - you just hardcode
> the CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS. But for the audience of me who needs to
> write his test/CMakeLists.txt such that test_no_exceptions.cpp is
> compiled without exceptions, regardless of the user generator or
> compiler, this won't do at all.

Hm, in my experience it's the other way around: end-users find it
too tedious to remember the sequence of options to enable the right
set of warnings for each compiler, etc. On the other hand, how
often do you write a test that needs to be built with exceptions
disables and how hard is it to specify the actual options for
essentially two classes of C++ compilers: MSVC and everything
else?

> Then there's the separate "run ctest" phase, which you didn't list.

I am not certain why they did it this way but I strongly suspect one
of the main reasons is the limitation of the underlying build systems
they have to support (point 1 in my list).