[CMake] Secret precompiled header support?

[Robert Dailey]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com> wrote:

>
> on Mon May 14 2012, Robert Dailey <
> rcdailey.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Is improvement desired in this area?
>
> By me, yes.
>

By this, do you mean, you've taken an initiative to fix this yourself? If
so, let me know if I can help out with anything.


>
> > Is the current implementation really satisfactory?
>
> For me, no.  I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
> where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.


I actually was reading over the boost modularization discussion, but I
didn't spend enough time there to understand what this whole process is
for. I'm assuming this is being setup so users can download pieces of boost
individually and only use the parts they want. I'm glad that Boost is
making a real effort to use CMake. I think such an influential community
being involved with CMake will help push Kitware to realize how serious
people are taking their products and maybe they'll make a move to
"professionalize" them. By that I mean, CMake is a great tool but very
inconsistent and somewhat messy and obscure in a lot of areas. Major work
needs to be done here to polish everything and make it feel organized and
professional. You can claim "portability" all day but you have to do it
right. Right now I feel CMake is 60% there. I say that because that 40% I
had to implement via CMake scripts over the course of several months,
resulting in a couple thousand lines of CMake code (to handle transitive
include dependencies, compiler-agnostic features such as PCH and warning
levels, private/public include directories, and other things).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20120515/8fba5b55/attachment.htm>