C++博客-游戏人生-最新评论http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/CommentsRSS.aspx游戏人生 != ( 人生 == 游戏 ) <br /> 站点迁移至：<a href="http://www.yulefox.com">http://www.yulefox.com</a>。请订阅本博的朋友将RSS修改为<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/yulefox">http://feeds.feedburner.com/yulefox</a>zh-cnWed, 06 Jan 2010 17:32:17 GMTWed, 06 Jan 2010 17:32:17 GMTcnblogsre: Autotools初体验http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/24/103743.html#103889FoxFoxThu, 24 Dec 2009 02:52:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/24/103743.html#103889这套工具现在对于我更多的是一个学习和试验，如果希望和别人交流和共同开发跨平台（尤其是non-win）的代码的话，由于需要对依赖库进行检测，这个工作可以由autoconf+automake来完成。

Fox 2009-12-24 10:52 发表评论
]]>re: Autotools初体验http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/24/103743.html#103884饭中淹饭中淹Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:31:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/24/103743.html#103884

饭中淹 2009-12-24 10:31 发表评论
]]>re: Autotools初体验http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/23/103743.html#103752FoxFoxWed, 23 Dec 2009 01:04:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/23/103743.html#103752
So why should you not switch an autotools-based project over to CMake?

Tedious
First and foremost, your configure.ac script may be large. Porting to CMake can be a time consuming and not so funnny task when it comes to the long tail.
iconv support missing
There are no standard tests for iconv(), neither for finding the compiler flags, nor whether it takes a const pointer.
pkg-config support broken
pkg-config support is reportedly broken as of cmake 2.4 patch 8.
Exported symbols list not implemented
There are no documented ways to specify the list of exported symbols for a shared libraries, so your libraries will unconditionnaly expose all their non-static APIs (libtool can use a flat list or a regular expression).
C99 compiler check missing
There is no built-in support to enable C99 support in the C compiler.
Objective-C flags not supported
You can add flags for the Objective-C compiler, but they propagate to C compilation as well.
Compiler feature checks missing
There are no built-in checks for any of the C99 features, such as variable-sized arrays, restricted pointers, macros with variable number of arguments, etc. nor for GCCisms.
Monolithic installation prefix
There is only one global installation prefix. So the typical Linux distro cannot set the global prefix to /usr while the system configuration (automake's sysconfdir) would be /etc. Very nice for "downstream" Linux packagers...
Installation paths hard-coding
As a consequence of the single prefix, you need to hard-code all paths from the prefix. Instead of ${docdir}, you need to hard-code ${prefix}/share/doc/${package} (${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/share/doc/foobar in CMake parliance) and so on and so forth. BSD porters are going to have fun tweaking the paths manually...
Uninstallation not supported
There is sipport for uninstalling. That is a design choice. You'd better never ever try to install a package straight from the build tree, without a proper packaging system.
Installation testsuite not supported
Since there is no uninstallation, there is no of course no distcheck target either. How often did you get your source tarball right from the first attempt before a new release?
No cross-compilation
There is no documented support for cross-compilation. This is scheduled for a future release.
Limited documentation
Compared to autotools, the documentation feels a bit light. At least, there is a wiki, but that cannot replace a good offline reference.
Limited executable renaming
CMake is not quite as powerful as automake (with program-prefix, program-suffix and program-transform-name) when it comes to on-the-fly executable renaming. This little-known feature of automake can be extremely useful when building an operating system distribution with possibly conflicting executable names from different projects. For instance, it is very conveniant along with the Debian alternatives system.
No source tarball packaging
There is no built-in support for making a tarball (make dist). Some Version Control Systems can do it themselves (git does, Subversion does not). This is quite critical a feature for open-source projects.
No source tarball testing
As there is no replacement for make dist, there is no replacement for make distcheck either. From my not-so-humble experience, that is tremendously useful before doing a new release. (NOTE: when I write distcheck, I mean distcheck. I don't mean check which becomes test with CMake)
No gettext integration
Gettext is not supported. Targets for .po and .mo files must be added manually. Nevermind that this is the most widely used localization subsystem in the open-source community.
Awkward feature listing
Whereby ./configure --help gives the list of build option, cmake --help prints the CMake options only. Instead, it seems you have to run cmake in "interactive" mode and answer a question for each and every setting (much like Linux kernel make config).
---------------------------
当然这些问题对于我不是必需的，不过还是等我autotools用一段时间再说:)

Fox 2009-12-23 09:04 发表评论
]]>re: Autotools初体验[未登录]http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/23/103743.html#103748jackyjackyWed, 23 Dec 2009 00:15:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/23/103743.html#103748

jacky 2009-12-23 08:15 发表评论
]]>re: 如何产生随机数http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/08/47118.html#102767FoxFoxMon, 07 Dec 2009 16:18:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/08/47118.html#102767#top a{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:white; }
#top a:link{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:white; }
#top a:hover{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:white; }
#top a:visited{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:white; }
.post a:link{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:maroon; }
.post a:hover{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:maroon; }
.post a:visited{ border-bottom:1px dashed; color:maroon; }
.postbody a{ color:white; background:maroon; }
.postbody a:link{ color:white; background:maroon; }
.postbody a:hover{ color:white; background:maroon; }
.postbody a:visited{ color:white; background:maroon; }
</style>

Fox 2009-12-08 00:18 发表评论
]]>re: 如何产生随机数http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/07/47118.html#102731CondorCondorMon, 07 Dec 2009 09:27:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/07/47118.html#102731

Condor 2009-12-07 17:27 发表评论
]]>re: ACE vs Boost: Singleton的实现http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/03/96898.html#102470金庆金庆Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:06:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/12/03/96898.html#102470http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html ）一文可作参考。不知adah所说的批驳是否指这一点？

金庆 2009-12-03 16:06 发表评论
]]>re: VS2005断点失效的问题[未登录]http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/11/11/71110.html#100717zqzqWed, 11 Nov 2009 10:16:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/11/11/71110.html#100717

zq 2009-11-11 18:16 发表评论
]]>re: 动态规划算法http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/10/11/49153.html#98285kongbu0621kongbu0621Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:24:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/10/11/49153.html#98285

kongbu0621 2009-10-11 00:24 发表评论
]]>re: ACE vs Boost: Singleton的实现http://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/09/29/96898.html#97515FoxFoxTue, 29 Sep 2009 01:19:00 GMThttp://www.cppblog.com/Fox/archive/2009/09/29/96898.html#97515给个链接我了解一下DCL被批的原因吧，我承认孤陋寡闻了。

Fox 2009-09-29 09:19 发表评论
]]>