I've defined a CMakeLists.txt file for my project which works correctly.
I use the CMake GUI for generating a Visual Studio Project, and I ask to build the binaries (CMAke cache and other stuff) in the folder Build which is in the same folder where CMakeLists.txt is.
I was able to specify where the executable and the libraries have to be created.
Is there a way to specify also where the Visual Studio Solution file has to be created? I would like to have it in the root directory, but at the same time I don't want to have also all the other files that CMake creates in the Build directory.
CMake creates the Project I defined in CMakeLists.txt but also two other projects: ALL_BUILD and ZERO_CHECK. What's their utility?
I was able to avoid the creation of ZERO_CHECK by using the command set_property(GLOBAL PROPERTY USE_FOLDERS On).
Is there a way for avoiding also the creation of ALL_BUILD?
It seems you only switched to CMake very recently, as exactly those questions also popped into my head when I first started using CMake. Let's address them in the order you posted them:
I use the CMake GUI for generating a Visual Studio Project, and I ask
to build the binaries (CMAke cache and other stuff) in the folder
Build which is in the same folder where CMakeLists.txt is.
Don't. Always do an out-of-source build with CMake. I know, it feels weird when you do it the first time, but trust me: Once you get used to it, you'll never want to go back.
Besides the fact that using source control becomes so much more convenient when code and build files are properly separated, this also allows to build separate distinct build configurations from the same source tree at the same time.
Is there a way to specify also where the Visual Studio Solution file has to be created?
You really shouldn't care.
I see why you do feel that you need full control over how the solution and project files get created, but you really don't. Simply specify the target for the solution as the origin of your out-of-source build and forget about all the other files that are generated. You don't need to worry, and you don't want to worry - this is exactly the kind of stuff that CMake is supposed to take care of for you.
Ask yourself: What would you gain if you could handpick the location of every project file? Nothing, because chances are, you will never touch them anyways. CMake is your sole master now...
CMake creates the Project I defined in CMakeLists.txt but also two
other projects: ALL_BUILD and ZERO_CHECK. What's their utility? I was
able to avoid the creation of ZERO_CHECK by using the command
set_property(GLOBAL PROPERTY USE_FOLDERS On). Is there a way for
avoiding also the creation of ALL_BUILD?
Again, you really shouldn't care. CMake defines a couple of dummy projects which are very useful for certain internal voodoo that you don't want to worry about. They look weird at first, but you'll get used to their sight faster than you think. Just don't try to throw them out, as it won't work properly.
If their sight really annoys you that much, consider moving them to a folder inside the solution so that you don't have to look at them all the time.
Bottom line: CMake feels different than a handcrafted VS solution in a couple of ways. This takes some getting used to, but is ultimately a much less painful experience than one might fear.
You don't always have a choice about what your environment requires. Visual Studio's GitHub integration requires that the solution file exists in source control and is at the root of the source tree. It's a documented limitation.
The best I was able to come up with is adding this bit to CMakeList.txt:
# The solution file isn't generated until after this script finishes,
# which means that:
# - it might not exist (if this is the first run)
# - you need to run cmake twice to ensure any new solution was copied
set(sln_binpath ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${PROJECT_NAME}.sln)
if(EXISTS ${sln_binpath})
# Load solution file from bin-dir and change the relative references to
# project files so that the in memory copy is as if it had been built in
# the source dir.
file(RELATIVE_PATH prefix
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR})
file(READ ${sln_binpath} sln_content)
string(REGEX REPLACE
"\"([^\"]+).vcxproj\""
"\"${prefix}/\\1.vcxproj\""
sln_content
"${sln_content}")
# Compare the updated contents with the existing source path sln, if it
# exists and is the same we don't want to disturb VS by touching it.
set(sln_srcpath ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/${PROJECT_NAME}.sln)
set(old_content "")
if(EXISTS ${sln_srcpath})
file(READ ${sln_srcpath} old_content)
endif()
if(NOT old_content STREQUAL sln_content)
file(WRITE ${sln_srcpath} ${sln_content})
endif()
endif()
What would be helpful is if cmake had a way to run post generation scripts, but I couldn't find one.
Other ideas that didn't work out:
wrap cmake inside a script that does the same thing, but:
telling users to run a seperate script isn't simpler than saying to run cmake twice. Especially since needing to run cmake twice isn't a foreign concept.
put it in a pre-build step, but
building is common and changing the build is rare
changing the solution from builds inside the IDE makes it do... things
use add_subdirectory because that's suppose to finish first
it appeared to make the vcxproj's immediately, but not the sln until later, but I didn't try as hard because this adds a bunch of additional clutter I didn't want - so maybe this can be made to work
Related
i want to move from using CMake to Premake for my current project, but im usig vim and the YCM plugin which is really great for making my setup like an IDE. However, the plugin needs compilation flags file which is produced when running CMake. Is there something for Premake to generate a file like that as well?
Premake does not do this in its current state (alpha 13). If you have some insights as to what is necessary for getting it to work, the best thing to do would be to submit a ticket in the issue tracker.
I'm afraid, if your new build system does not generate that compilation flags file (yet), you'll need to maintain your own (hand-crafted) one. You can find an example at https://github.com/Valloric/ycmd/blob/0e999dbee209ea79a522259816ce3a68b7d6cddc/examples/.ycm_extra_conf.py.
I would advice to have (at least) one per project rather than one generic one in your $HOME.
Although I have to admit, that it would be beneficial to get it created and in sync with the actual build system, I don't find it too troublesome to maintain it manually. At the end of the day it only contains the C++ standard you want to use, a set of preprocessor symbols and a set of both system and user include directories.
My SCons project depends on a lot of third party libs, each providing dozens or hundreds of include files.
My understanding of how SCons works is that, on each build, it parses the source files of my project to find the #include directives, and it uses the value of env['CPPPATH'] to find these files and compute their md5 sum.
This scanning is costly, and thus I would like to optimize this process by teaching SCons that all the headers of my third party files will never change. This property is actually enforced by the tool that manages our third party libs.
I know there is a --implicit-deps-unchanged option that forces scons to assume that the implicit dependencies did not change, but it works globally. I did not find a way to restrict this option to a particular directory. I tried to find if the default Scanner of implicit C++ files can be configured, but found nothing. I think it is possible to avoid using CPPPATH, and instead only give the -I option to the compiler directly, but it is cumbersome.
Is there any way to optimize SCons by teaching him that files in a directory will never, ever change?
You can try pre-expanding the list of header file paths into CCFLAGS.
Note that doing so means they will not be scanned.
for i in list_of_third_party_header_directories:
env['CCFLAGS'].append('-I' + i)
In this case the contents of CPPPATH would be your source directories, and not the third-party ones which you assert don't change.
Note that changing the command line of your compile commands in any way (unless the arguments are enclosed in $( $)) will cause your source files to recompile.
I have been using git for some time now and I feel I have a good handle on it.
I did however, build my first small program as a distribution (something with ./configure make and make install) and I want to put it up on github but I am not sure how to exactly go about tracking it.
Should I, for instance, initialize git but only track the source code file, manpage, and readme (since the other files generated by autoconf and automake seem a bit superfluous)
Or should I make an entirely different directory and put the source files in there and then manually rebuild everything for version 0.2 when it is time?
Or do something else entirely?
I have tried searching but I cannot come up with any search terms that give me the kind of results I am looking for.
for instance initialize git but only track the source code file, manpage, and readme (since the other files generated by autoconf and automake seem a bit superfluous)
Yes: anything used to build needs to be tracked.
Anything being the result of the build does not need to be tracked.
should I make an entirely different directory
No: in version control, you could make a new tag to mark each version, and release branches from those tags to isolate patches which could be specific to the implementation details of a fixed release.
But you don't create folders (that was the subversion way)
should I make an entirely different directory for sources
Yes, you can (if you have a large set of files for sources)
But see also "Makefiles with source files in different directories"; you don't have just one Makefile.
The traditional way is to have a Makefile in each of the subdirectories (part1, part2, etc.) allowing you to build them independently.
Further, have a Makefile in the root directory of the project which builds everything.
And don't forget to put your object files in a separate folder (not tracked) as well.
See also this question as a concrete example.
I'm developing application for GNU/Linux using gcc 4 and cmake to manage compilation process. I found that is has no problems when there are two files with the same name but in other directory and namespace like this:
.
|-- gfx
| |-- Object.cpp
| `-- Object.h
`-- logic
|-- Object.cpp
`-- Object.h
First Object class is in Gfx namespace and second in Logic namespace.
Then I've tried to compile this project using Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition. Linker threw several errors about non-existing implementation of Gfx::Object class. After few checks I found out that:
Visual C++ is tracking two of Object.cpp files
When change occurs in first or second file the recompilation of Object unit is queued
It always recompile only the second Object.cpp regardless of which file was actually modified
I also found out that Visual C++ don't allow to create two classes with same name.
Is there a solution for this? I don't really want to refactor quite big part of code.
Both Object.cpp files will be compiled to Object.obj. Into the same directory. In other words, the last one that is compiled will overwrite the Object.obj of the first one. Yes, the linker isn't going to be thrilled by that, you'll get multiply defined symbols since it links the same Object.obj file twice.
The fix is easy, right-click one of the Object.cpp files, Properties, C/C++, Output Files. Change the Object File Name from $(IntDir)\ to, say, $(IntDir)\$(InputName)2.obj
The problem is that by default VC++2008 places all the object files into a single output folder, so the existence of the first object.obj file satisfies the dependency for the second so it is not compiled; and even if it were, it would overwrite the first one.
What you need to be able to do is make the intermediate directory setting dependent in the file being compiled. However I have tried setting it to $(InputDir) and various other combinations, but could not succeed in achieving a configuration that works, although it may be possible. The available macros are documented here.
Failing that you could use a "makefile" project, and manage the build with make, nmake, or cmake or whatever, since there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what you are doing (even if it is ill-advised), it is just that it is not easily supported by the IDE.
This has already been answered, but I also want to add Visual Studio 2010 will automatically put the two .obj files into different directories if there is a conflict, based on my experience with Beta 2.
EDIT: Uh oh, this is wrong! The real answer is that CMake was automatically doing this for me.
The accepted solution is not optimal because it does not scale.
In Visual Studio 2010, I set
Properties -> C/C++ -> Output Files -> Output File Name
to
V:\%(Directory)$(PlatformName)_$(ConfigurationName)_%(Filename).obj
for OBJ files to end up next to the sources assuming the project lies on drive V (no idea whether there is a macro for it, yet).
Not optimal, either - but at least I can easily fork subsystems of many source files without getting tenosynovitis.
By the way: $(InputDir) refers to the solution/project directory and will cause the same problem in another directory.
I come from a Java background, and the shop where I currently work refuses to use anything other than MS VC++ to build their legacy project. They don't appear to use any standards for setting up their build environment other than just building it using VS2005 and clicking the compile button.
I was wondering if there was anything closer to what Java had for instance:
A build tool like ANT or Maven
A directory structure that makes sense containing
src - Place for all my source files .c/.cpp/.h
lib - A place for any libraries that might be used in the project (.dll, .lib)
dist - A place for the output executable/distribution of the project
resources - A place for any images/sounds/text files that might be included in the project.
build.xml - Some sort of a build file (my guess would be something like ./configure or MAKEFILE)
Or am I asking too much from a C++ build environment? Is it just always as chaotic as the people in my shop make it out to be? I really have a hard time believing that considering the success of so many C++ projects on the internet.
It sounds like you have good intentions - coming form a non MSVC world I can see your points.
If I were in y our shoes I would definitely make a command line/automated build/build server.
You can use MSBuild for this - and hudson has a plugin for this. I usually have a "Build" directory near the root of the projects that contains scripts/etc that will call the appropriate MSBuild/.sln files.
The "makefiles" for Visual Studio are .sln and .vcproj files. You can call those with msbuild from the command line. You can also export a makefile (I think that is still an option) from within the IDE that you can run. I don;t recommend going that route though other than trying it out and seeing what is output - since that is what you are familiar with.
Both the vcproj and sln files are human readable - go through them - it will give you some useful information.
I would also agree that having a distributon directory is good - for building an installer/etc after the build. Copy all the needed binaries there - either in postbuild steps or in another script/etc.
Let us know what you end up doing.
I have one other piece of advice:
UPGRADE to VC/Dev studio 2008 or 2010. ASAP
MSVC does not impose any directory structure on you. There are some defaults, as mentioned above for the Debug and Release directories, for example, but even these can be overridden on a per-project basis. Use whatever directory structure makes sense to you.
Visual Studio does provide command line support if you don't want to use the IDE. See This MSDN Article for more information.
You can setup a proper build environment using Visual Studio (and for solutions with more than one project, you should), and there are a number of environment variables to use in the project configuration to set so that output files and intermediate files go to different folders than those defined by default.
In our large VS solution, we use e.g. obj/$(ProjectName)/$(ConfigurationName) as intermediate directory and bin/$(ConfigurationName) as output directory in all sub-projects.
All these things must be enforced by the user, and it seems that no single recommendation/best practice has evolved.
The standardized stuff:
The build tool: Visual Studio (doesn't need an extra product)
Build file: *.sln / *.vcproj (*.vbproj for Visual Basic, etc)
Directory structure: "Debug" and "Release" directories for the output binaries.
The rest isn't so much "chaotic" as "doesn't really matter". "Chaotic" suggests that it changes all the time, but in reality you just pick one for a project and stick with it. Companies may have internal standards across projects. It just doesn't matter enough to bother standardizing across companies. C++ is a complex language anyway; anyone with sufficient IQ to read C++ can deal with reasonable variation. The difference between \lib\ and \Library\ won't stop them.