POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.programming : Interested in CMake support (build system, IDE integration) : Re: Interested in CMake support (build system, IDE integration) Server Time
29 Feb 2024 04:26:01 EST (-0500)
  Re: Interested in CMake support (build system, IDE integration)  
From: Le Forgeron
Date: 14 Nov 2013 03:36:51
Message: <52848ba3$1@news.povray.org>
Le 14/11/2013 08:49, ideasman42 a écrit :
> Hi, I read on the recent github page that supporting IDE's (not just MSVC) is
> high priority for Povray.
> I maintain CMake build-system for Blender and have found it excellent for
> MSVC/Eclipse/QtCreator/Netbeans/KDevelop (XCode works well apparently though I
> don't use OSX).
> This also allows you to use Ninja (rather then gnu-make) which can give very
> fast builds.
> While the syntax of the CMake is a little strange, overall the build system
> works very well in my experience, other projects such as LLVM/Clang, BRL-CAD,
> OpenImageIO, OpenShadingLanguage - are using CMake too.
> Is it worth me getting CMake setup for Povray? - if you guys are not interested
> I would rather not spend time on it.

My 0.02c:
 1. Is the gnu-make broken ? Do not fix unless it's broken.
 2. From experience with eclipse, povray is rather "simple": compile
everything that is relevant and link as a single binary (smart part is
excluding from hierarchy the porting part that are not relevant to the
 3. Fast build: I do not care, I build 6 different version of povray on
my home system (3 compilers(gcc, clang and intel), official and personal
code) and that might happen only once per month or less (but I enjoy
"make -j 15" for the speedup... but that's my system). When I'm in a
loop of compilation, usually it's for a new extension, and make only
recompile what has been touched. (until it reachs my syntax error)
 4. The tricky part is mainly running configure when extracting the
tarball, nothing related to makefile.

Now, the previous points apply to a unix/linux system.

I do not know if the Windows part is happy with the MSVC projects (or
whatever they now named the IDE). But the official one has graphical
interface not available in unix, so factoring on makefile seems futile.

On my linux usage, there is basically a single target for make: generate
the binary. All others secondary target are, to me, mainly irrelevant
(make, make clean and make distclean is basically all I need. Sometime
make check, and make install)

I do not know for the Mac port either, which so far is kindly provided
by Yvo Smellenbergh.

Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.