[CMake] Properly Detecting Win64 - [Semi Off Topic Reply]

[j s]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:04 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
> But you've blown everything else away at that point, so the *build* is a
> full rebuild, right?
>
> CMake configure takes 60 seconds, but how long does the full build take?

My guess is that CMake is invoking a lot of processes in running its
tests.  Creating a process on windows is very expensive.  I suspect
having an equivalent solution written with make in cygwin would be
very slow as well.

Juan

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Michael Jackson
> <mike.jackson at bluequartz.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Dave,
>>  So here are some timings for running CMake to the point where I can
>> actually build my project. THe hardware is an Mac Pro 8 Core (16 Thread)
>> 2.6GHz OS X 10.6.6 box also running Windows 7 x64. On OS X I use Makefiles
>> in combination with Eclipse as the IDE so I generate straight Makefiles. On
>> this system my project takes 10 seconds to configure to a point where it is
>> ready to compile. On Windows using Visual Studio 9 2008 x64 as the generator
>> this takes 58 seconds. When you are heavy into development where the CMake
>> files are changing a bunch and there are lots and lots of runs of CMake then
>> yes I thought I was taking a shortcut. Unfortunately this shortcut proved to
>> have very bad side effects and now I don't do it any more. But still, 10
>> seconds versus 60 Seconds can be a frustrating difference when deadlines are
>> looming and you are needing to go faster.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Jackson <www.bluequartz.net>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:23 PM, David Cole wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > In my opinion, blowing away everything except for the CMakeCache.txt
>> > file is asking for trouble, and puts you in an invalid (or at the very
>> > least, unexpected) state. Because some of the cached values may depend on
>> > some of the stuff that was just blown away. If you're blowing everything
>> > else away, why not blow away CMakeCache.txt, too? Is the CMake configure
>> > that high a percentage of your total build time that saving a few minutes on
>> > the whole makes it worth trouble like this?
>> >
>> > However, even so, I would like to understand and track down the source
>> > and the root cause of this trouble with CMAKE_SIZEOF_VOID_P -- because its
>> > correctness is arguably very important for many projects out there.
>> >
>> > So -- if somebody has a way to reproduce this without blowing away
>> > everything except for the CMakeCache.txt, I'd still like to hear it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
>> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
>