[CMake] Effort to create a new generator (tup)

[Bill Hoffman]

On 5/5/2010 3:39 PM, Mike Shal wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Bill Hoffman<bill.hoffman at
> kitware.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/22/2010 3:47 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>> As we never attempted to do any sort of CMake generator, not even
>>> looking the existing, I'd like to know the expected effort to write
>>> one for Tup from you guys. Anyone that would like to help with this
>>> task?
>>>
>>
>> I think it would be a somewhat larger undertaking.   It may tax tup quite a
>> bit.  However, CMake has a pretty good set of tests so you would know when
>> it was working.
>
> I'm not too familiar with CMake, but I wrote tup. What part of making
> a CMake generator do you think would tax tup?
>
Not sure yet, perhaps none of it.  It would have to build custom 
commands and targets.   Basically, support for code generators like 
swig/moc/lex/yacc.  I guess the auto-depend stuff in tup would work for 
C/C++, but the Fortran 90 stuff in CMake would not work.  It would be an 
interesting project.  To be honest I really did not research tup very 
much at all.  CMake is also used to build very large projects like KDE, 
sounds like tup is designed with that in mind, but it would have to 
handle very larger numbers of targets and .o files.

Would tup support the idea of building .o files with -j 5, and linking 
executables with -j 2 say?  Some targets are more expensive than others, 
and you want to limit parallelism sometimes.   Note, the makefiles in 
CMake do NOT do this now, it would be a nice feature.

-Bill