[Openmp-dev] Initial Intel Cmake Build System Patch

[Cownie, James H]

From: openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of "C. Bergström"
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 11:33 PM
To: Peyton, Jonathan L
Cc: openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] Initial Intel Cmake Build System Patch

On 06/10/14 04:06 AM, Peyton, Jonathan L wrote:
> C. Bergström,
>
> It's fine if you want to change the flag-grabbing layout.  Although, I feel having icc.cmake, gcc.cmake, clang.cmake, common.cmake, etc. 
> would be just as hard to maintain.  i.e., If some flag is only valid for a subset of compilers then all those *.cmake files will have to
> be modified.  Each file will also have its own if(OS_TYPE) sections.  
> If you really want to support every possible compiler, you are just going to have to strip away as many of the compiler-specific
> flags as you can.


Why is this being set at all? This is really all stuff the user can set and possibly should be moved to documentation if you don't like the idea of icc.cmake. I don't see how removing all the if () mess isn't a good idea.
_______________________________________________
Openmp-dev mailing list
Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev

I think the issue here is related at least in part to what the aim is.
Do we want a cmake system that is very easy for someone who has just downloaded the code to use to build for an existing configuration, or one that is easy for someone to modify to port to a new machine?

What Johnny has been building is closer to the former; it tries to do the right thing, but as a result embodies a lot of information about what that is.

What I see others asking for is something much simpler, where the cmake system has no internal knowledge, but the user has to tell it what to do.

Do we expect more experts doing ports to new machines, or more inexpert people trying to build the runtime?
(And, a related question, which class of people is more likely to read documentation? [I'm guilty here, so I really don't know the answer!])

-- Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.