[CMake] Gyp VS CMake

[Jed Brown]

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 18:27, Michael Wild <themiwi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tup was already discussed on this list quite some time ago. Using
> LD_PRELOAD to do those things makes my skin crawl.
>

Using an incorrect C preprocessor and needing to write a dependency
generator for each language/dialect makes my skin crawl. :-)


> I really like the concepts behind Tup, and it is blazingly fast, but
> that funky hijacking business makes me really uncomfortable. OTOH, if
> the author of Tup really can make it watertight, backed up by an
> extensive test suite which you can apply to your toolchain in order to
> be sure it works fine, I could get used to the idea ;-)
>

My problem with Tup is not with the dependency analysis, but with
out-of-source and partial builds. A few people have been asking for these
things, and while Mike Shal (Tup's author) still seems unconvinced of their
importance, I expect they will show up eventually.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20110219/bfb22fff/attachment.htm>