[SDL] SDL Digest, Vol 75, Issue 65

Mike Leimon leimon at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 11:26:40 PDT 2013

Feel free to give it TLC!

Once it has 100% support for existing autotool and Visual Studio project
features I would be willing to switch to it.

That includes libtool soname compatibility, cygwin/mingw32 support, system
feature support, copying test files and SDL.dll for the Visual Studio test
projects, supporting the linker optimizations on VC++, etc.


On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Scott Percival <moralrecordings at gmail.com>wrote:

> You're sounding a little confused. CMake is more a replacement for GNU
> Autotools (automake, autoconf, libtool etc.); it takes a script
> (CMakeLists.txt) with the dependencies and targets, and spits out makefiles
> which are interpreted by the build tool (e.g. GNU make).
> There's quite a few differences; the main one is that scripts for
> Autotools need to be written in M4, a macro language from the late 70s
> which only still exists because Autotools uses it. M4 itself is about as
> intelligent as a lump hammer, and almost as fun as being smacked in the
> testicles with. It's best described as shorthand for copy-pasting snippets
> together to form something indecipherable to humans, which you'll later
> have to debug while sober.
> While CMake isn't perfect by any means, it's a hell of a lot more sane
> than Autotools. It has a very nice bundled library of scripts and
> dependency lookup routines, or can fall back to pulling info from
> pkg-config. Configuring is tremendously faster than autotools, as it cuts
> out nearly all of the pointless "checking that 1+1 == 2" compilation tests
> at the start, and does an okay job at caching. It can generate makefiles
> for tools other than GNU make. If there's an error in the script, you have
> a fighting chance of figuring it out.
> Hell it even -looks- nicer; when you run make it gives you a nice coloured
> progress readout for each file, instead of the wall of text sent as
> arguments to g++. Very useful for separating out compile warnings.
> SDL's CMake scripts are pretty good, the only downside is that they've
> only been around for 3 months and still need some TLC. Have a look inside
> the configure script one day and say with a straight face that it looks
> nicer than the equivalent CMakeLists.txt.
> On 2 March 2013 16:31, neoaggelos <neoaggelos at yahoo.gr> wrote:
>> **
>> Well, cmake might be a little better, but I haven't seen much of a
>> difference.
>> Also, make works great, and it's the standard.
>> But, if you want to build just one file, then sdl2-config is your friend [image:
>> Wink]
>> ------------------------------
>> C is the God's Programming Language
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20130302/79df2dc9/attachment-0009.htm>

More information about the SDL mailing list