Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> writes:>> >> CMake generates gigantic project files for IDEs like Visual Studio and >> >> Xcode, which causes those IDEs to behavior very poorly, with long >> >> project load times and sluggish overall performance. It's a significant >> >> productivity problem. >> > -- Douglas Gregor, On 26 Jun 2012, at 17:42 >> > (on thread "CMake Question: Do we need to support stand-alone builds?") >> >> I don't know if Doug measured the impact on Visual Studio performance >> specifically caused by CMake, compared to non-CMake project >> files. AFAIK, CMake is the only existing option for working with Visual >> Studio, so I have no idea of what's the point of Doug here. >> > > Doug specifically mentioned Xcode.... and VS.> For VS CMake does support project()s > which you can open by themselves in the IDE, including all dependencies.So it doesn't for Xcode? CMake comes with an Xcode generator which had (has?) several nasty limitations. Time ago some Apple people were in touch with the CMake developers and, IIRC, patches were proposed. I guess that the Xcode generator still lacks in quality.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:> Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> writes: > > >> >> CMake generates gigantic project files for IDEs like Visual Studio > and > >> >> Xcode, which causes those IDEs to behavior very poorly, with long > >> >> project load times and sluggish overall performance. It's a > significant > >> >> productivity problem. > >> > -- Douglas Gregor, On 26 Jun 2012, at 17:42 > >> > (on thread "CMake Question: Do we need to support stand-alone > builds?") > >> > >> I don't know if Doug measured the impact on Visual Studio performance > >> specifically caused by CMake, compared to non-CMake project > >> files. AFAIK, CMake is the only existing option for working with Visual > >> Studio, so I have no idea of what's the point of Doug here. > >> > > > > Doug specifically mentioned Xcode. > > ... and VS. >Forgot context: there was a short discussion on IRC, where Doug mentioned that Xcode is a priority for him, and some VS users mentioned that VS support from CMake was actually quite good these days for llvm/clang's project size (other things lack in general on Windows, of course).> > > For VS CMake does support project()s > > which you can open by themselves in the IDE, including all dependencies. > > So it doesn't for Xcode? CMake comes with an Xcode generator which had > (has?) several nasty limitations. Time ago some Apple people were in > touch with the CMake developers and, IIRC, patches were proposed. I > guess that the Xcode generator still lacks in quality. >I have no idea. I believe Doug when he claims that he used it and it's not measuring up ;) Cheers, /Manuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120627/0c92d0f6/attachment.html>
> > > For VS CMake does support project()s > > which you can open by themselves in the IDE, including all dependencies. > > So it doesn't for Xcode? CMake comes with an Xcode generator which had > (has?) several nasty limitations. Time ago some Apple people were in > touch with the CMake developers and, IIRC, patches were proposed. I > guess that the Xcode generator still lacks in quality. > > I have no idea. > > I believe Doug when he claims that he used it and it's not measuring up ;)I've heard this from others as well. -eric
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:18:25 +0200, Óscar Fuentes said:>A CMake generator is not terribly complex. Sadly, I have no access to >Xcode (nor to a Mac) but I'm sure that any developer with several free >hours can improve things quite a bit. From the discussions with Apple >people I mentioned above, it was clear that the CMake developers are >aware of the inferior quality of the Xcode generator, but they say that >there is little interest from the Xcode users.Part of the problem of course is that the Xcode project format is not documented and so must be reverse engineered, which is fragile. -- ____________________________________________________________ Sean McBride, B. Eng sean at rogue-research.com Rogue Research www.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada
Le 28 juin 2012 à 00:18, Óscar Fuentes a écrit :> Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> > writes: > >>>>> For VS CMake does support project()s >>>>> which you can open by themselves in the IDE, including all dependencies. >>> >>>> So it doesn't for Xcode? CMake comes with an Xcode generator which had >>>> (has?) several nasty limitations. Time ago some Apple people were in >>>> touch with the CMake developers and, IIRC, patches were proposed. I >>>> guess that the Xcode generator still lacks in quality. >>> >>> I have no idea. >>> >>> I believe Doug when he claims that he used it and it's not measuring up ;) >> >> I've heard this from others as well. > > A CMake generator is not terribly complex. Sadly, I have no access to > Xcode (nor to a Mac) but I'm sure that any developer with several free > hours can improve things quite a bit. From the discussions with Apple > people I mentioned above, it was clear that the CMake developers are > aware of the inferior quality of the Xcode generator, but they say that > there is little interest from the Xcode users.It's a chicken and egg problems. Xcode users don't use cmake because it generates poor Xcode projects. -- Jean-Daniel
On 28 Jun 2012, at 08:58, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:> It's a chicken and egg problems. Xcode users don't use cmake because it > generates poor Xcode projects.So what *do* XCode users do (to build llvm/clang)? Do they somehow set up XCode to build using the autoconf build system? Do they build llvm/clang outside of XCode? If the answer to either of the last two questions is "yes", then what is stopping XCode users from using the CMake build system with the normal makefile generator, instead of the XCode generator? (I'm asking in the context of "what is preventing LLVM's CMake build system from replacing the autoconf build system?") --Dave.