[SDL] Problem to build and link SDL 2 with project using CMake

Scott Percival moralrecordings at gmail.com
Sat Mar 2 17:52:25 PST 2013


Actually on that subject, a while back I threw up a tiny patch to fix some
deadlocks caused by pthread support being only half-detected on Ubuntu -
http://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1709 , any chance this could be
reviewed? Thanks!

On 3 March 2013 09:04, Sam Lantinga <slouken at libsdl.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers!
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130303/4d1bcb2e/attachment-0009.htm>


More information about the SDL mailing list