[cmake-developers] Fixing ProcessorCount.cmake

[David Cole]

FYI:

The output that you see, both directly from ProcessorCount.cmake, and
indirectly from the tools that it calls to try to determine the processor
count, will be eliminated shortly (over the next few days)... but for now...
it is being left in for "dashboard diagnostics" so that I can see what is
happening on machines that I do not have direct access to.

Also, if anybody has good suggestions for how to grab this information on
the following platforms, please do let me know (a patch or even just
pointers to relevant info in platform documentation):
- AIX
- FreeBSD / OpenBSD
- HP
- IRIX
- Sun

Otherwise, this function may end up being useful only for Linux, Mac, QNX
and Windows...

Thanks for your patience while this is under development.


David Cole
Kitware, Inc.


On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:

> Hi Rolf,
>
> Can you update to a CMake based on 'next' and try the commit I made this
> morning on a QNX machine? (based on your patch, thank you for that...)
>
>
> http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=680ca4baab85cbc1be98bcfd81b7e4402ffa8d84
>
> We are supposed to have a continuous and a nightly QNX dashboard running,
> but they do not seem to be reporting for the last few days.
>
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
>
>> I will keep going with this on Monday....
>>
>> It was my intent to make the test fail last night on platforms where
>> we could not determine the processor count, so we'd get a good sense
>> of how much work remains for the platforms not yet accounted for. But
>> I messed up the test a bit.
>>
>> I'll correct that, and apply this patch on Monday and we'll keep
>> moving forward. Hopefully other folks can chime in after that if there
>> are still more platforms where we need to use other techniques to come
>> up with the result.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>>
>> More next week,
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Rolf Eike Beer <eike at sf-mail.de> wrote:
>> > I feel like I'm taking the position the great Greg KH has in Linux
>> kernel
>> > development: the maintainer of crap. You write it "QNX" but you speak it
>> > "crap". Don't get me wrong, I hate this stuff. But I have to deal with
>> it so I
>> > want CMake work there properly to reduce my pain.
>> >
>> > So here is a fix for the ProcessorCount.cmake module to work properly
>> there.
>> > This also makes it possible on all platforms that have getconf to detect
>> if
>> > _NPROCESSORS_ONLN is not supported.
>> >
>> > I would love to see if someone of Kitware could get into contact with
>> the guys
>> > at QNX. AFAIK there is sort of a free partner program where you get
>> developer
>> > licenses of their OS. I have two virtual machines (Linux KVM) running
>> with
>> > 6.4.1 and 6.5.0 which works (for some values of works). If you would go
>> and
>> > throw something like 6.3.2, 6.4.1, and 6.5.0 in virtual machines you
>> could
>> > make them build cmake nightly and test all this stuff. Sadly I can't use
>> my
>> > work machines for that (for different reasons).
>> >
>> > Eike
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cmake-developers mailing list
>> > cmake-developers at cmake.org
>> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20101108/ebae759d/attachment.html>