[CMake] Is it safe to add properties to custom target?

[David Cole]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Marcel Loose <loose at astron.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 22:24 +0100, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Marcel Loose wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > In fact the subject title says it all. Is it safe to do, for example:
> > >
> > > add_custom_target(myTarget)
> > > set_target_properties(myTarget PROPERTIES
> > >   LOCATION ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR})
> > >
> > > It seems to work fine, but I'm not sure this is the right way to do it.
> >
> > What should this do ?
> > It is safe to add your own custom properties, so you can query them
> later. If
> > you want to force cmake to do something special by setting the LOCATION
> > property, I'm sure either this doesn't work or this works accidentially
> but
> > is not supported.
> >
> > Alex
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I was considering to set this property for custom targets in analogy
> with the LOCATION and LOCATION_<CONFIG> properties that are set for
> library and executable targets. I'm aware of the fact that I will need
> to handle this property myself; that CMake won't know anything about it.
> But I was concerned that it might clash with a future release of CMake,
> if support for the LOCATION property for custom targets were added to
> CMake.
>
>
It would be a good idea to use your own name for that property. Perhaps
${MY_PROJECT}_LOCATION or something similar... We don't really have a good
policy/convention in place about property names and avoiding future clashes,
but since you already know we do set LOCATION internally, using your own
property name would avoid problems if it ever does make sense for us to add
that property to custom targets.

HTH,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20091211/bee5201e/attachment-0001.htm>