Preface: I'm new to cmake and only have a barely-passing knowledge of how it works, so this may not be as hard as it looks to me. :-)
For various "legacy" reasons, I'm using cmake 2.8.12, and I have a large complicated project that I did not create, but now I'm trying to figure out how to make it build faster. In the top-level CMakeLists.txt file that drives everything, there are lots of targets defined for the app build and other things, and at the end it has something like "include(StaticResources)".
StaticResources.cmake defines (and at the end, calls) a function that just iterates over a ton of dirs with static files and installs each of those dirs to the output dir, as well as installing a few explicitly enumerate files, some of which are renamed.
The problem I'm trying to eliminate is that even if a build does nothing at all, this function takes many seconds as cmake goes through and visits each dir/file to see if it needs to be copied. I'm trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesn't even look at that stuff if nothing has changed.
Any ideas? Things I have thought of trying (but am not sure how):
- possibly make that StaticResources function depend on the main app target in some way such that it only runs when the main app has to be built (this isn't ideal, of course, because lots things can change that app without requiring resources to be deployed)
- having a StaticResources "build" target that computes a hash of the state of all of these static resources files and writes it to an output file only if something is changed, then having this static resources function install that target with custom code that actually installs the static files. It seems like this would make sure that the install is only considered if/when the resources actually change, but I'm not sure if cmake will allow me to "install(StaticResources "
Related
Suppose I have a hierarchical CMake project, composed of n different projects:
CMakeLists.txt
proj-1/CMakeLists.txt
proj-2/CMakeLists.txt
(...)
proj-n/CMakeLists.txt
Evidently there'll be the source files for each project as well.
I'd ensure all commands of interest are added to the root CMakeLists.txt file -- say, CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD, enable_testing(), add_compile_options(), etc. If I understand correctly, whichever options are included in the root CMakeLists.txt file are also applied to all children CMakeLists.txt file -- please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm counting on this behavior. The root CMakeLists.txt also contains an add_subdirectory(proj-X) statement for each X = 1, ..., n.
Anyway. Suppose, for some reason, that I would like to build only one of the proj-X folders, say proj-1. Maybe the build is broken in one of the other projects, or maybe I need to fix a bug on proj-1, it doesn't depend on the other projects, and it would take forever to build all projects.
The point is: I would like to run cmake on proj-1/CMakeLists.txt rather than on the root CMakeLists.txt file, and yet I would like to ensure that proj-1 is built in exactly the same way it would be build, had I run cmake on the root CMakeLists.txt file. This is an issue since the root CMakeLists.txt contains statements that the children CMakeLists.txt should "inherit" from in the regular situation where it's built from the root, and yet in this scenario I'm building directly from proj-1/CMakeLists.txt (the root CMakeLists.txt file doesn't come into the picture in this scenario.)
One possibility, as I understand, would be to copy all options from the root CMakeLists.txt file to every other proj-X/CMakeLists.txt file. Of course, this is a hack and a maintenance nightmare, but I suppose it would work.
Are there other possible solutions? Can I, say, create a file containing all the common options and save it to the root, and then do the CMake equivalent of #include within each of the proj-X/CMakeLists.txt files? Would there be an issue due to running the same commands twice (once on the root CMakeLists.txt and another on the proj-X/CMakeLists.txt file, when starting the build from the root)?
You may need to rework some of your CMakeLists.txt files.
I would recommend watching Daniel Pfeifer's Effective CMake talk at CPPcon (slides available here).
The gist of it is that all of your projects should provide everything they need in order to be build or compiled, in essence build requirements and usage requirements. To achieve this in a maintainable and scalable way you have to move away from variables and setting global options (add_compile_options, include_directories, etc) and instead focus on targets (target_compile_options, target_include_directories, etc).
So, in your case proj-1/CMakeLists.txt will provide one target (let's call it proj::proj1) that sets the proper PUBLIC and INTERFACE options (by options I mean needed compiler features, dependencies, include directories, etc).
An abstract example:
project(proj1)
add_library(proj1 src.cpp)
# This are private include files, whoever uses this library does not need them
target_include_directories(proj1 PRIVATE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/include)
# These are public, needed both by this target and by whoever uses it.
target_include_directories(proj1 PUBLIC
# This is used when building the target
$<BUILD_INTERFACE:${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/public/include>
# This is used when the target is installed
$<INSTALL_INTERFACE:include>)
# Instead of asking directly for a language standard we ask for a compiler feature. We make this public so whoever depends on this target knows they also need this feature.
target_compile_features(proj1 PUBLIC cxx_strong_enums)
# As above, but this is needed only by this target during the build.
target_compile_features(proe1 PRIVATE cxx_lambdas)
# Add an alias, users can use target_link_libraries(target PRIVATE|PUBLIC proj::proj1) to add this target as a dependency (this will propagate all the PUBLIC include paths, compile options, compile features, dependencies, etc.
add_library(proj::proj1 ALIAS proj1)
This is highly abstract, it depends on what you're actually doing in your build scripts, it's hard to give a better explanation than Daniel Pfeifer, so I recommend watching his talk or at least reading the slides. It will make your build scripts a lot easier to write, read, and use.
Another great resource is this site.
I usually find hidden subfolders in working directories, which, as I suppose, were produced by the Perl 6 compiler, e.g.:
.precomp/0717742595706FA8D59800F9F9F7074236546DE7.1505852292.23535/0B/0BDF8C54D33921FEA066491D8D13C96A7CB144B9.repo-id
So, I have two questions:
Is it normal?
Is it indispensable for the compiler or there is a way to avoid it?
The .precomp folder houses the precompiled form of Perl 6 modules.
The first time you use a module it gets compiled and stored in .precomp so that it doesn't have to be compiled it again. (currently only modules, not programs)
You can delete the directory and your code will continue to function. It will just be slower. Note that it will be recreated again the next time you use a module unless the directory can't be written to. I occasionally delete it myself; though that is because I regularly rebuild Rakudo from git. I do that just to clean the remnants of older installs.
The reason for the long seemingly arbitrary directory names are due to the fact that multiple versions from multiple authors of a module may be installed at once, and the possibility of Unicode module names. There has been talk of using another system which would give the files/directories more reasonable names, it just hasn't happened yet.
The CMake doc says about the command file GLOB:
We do not recommend using GLOB to collect a list of source files from your source tree. If no CMakeLists.txt file changes when a source is added or removed then the generated build system cannot know when to ask CMake to regenerate.
Several discussion threads in the web second that globbing source files is evil.
However, to make the build system know that a source has been added or removed, it's sufficient to say
touch CMakeLists.txt
Right?
Then that's less effort than editing CMakeLists.txt to insert or delete a source file name. Nor is it more difficult to remember. So I don't see any good reason to advise against file GLOB.
What's wrong with this argument?
The problem is when you're not alone working on a project.
Let's say project has developer A and B.
A adds a new source file x.c. He doesn't changes CMakeLists.txt and commits after he's finished implementing x.c.
Now B does a git pull, and since there have been no modifications to the CMakeLists.txt, CMake isn't run again and B causes linker errors when compiling, because x.c has not been added to its source files list.
2020 Edit: CMake 3.12 introduces the CONFIGURE_DEPENDS argument to file(GLOB which makes globbing scan for new files: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.12/command/file.html#filesystem
This is however not portable (as Visual Studio or Xcode solutions don't support the feature) so please only use that as a first approximation, else other people can have trouble building your CMake files under their IDE of choice!
It's not inherently evil - it has advantanges and disadvantages, covered relatively well in this answer here on StackOverflow. But if you use it carelessly, you could end up ignoring dependency changes and requiring clean rebuilds of large parts of your codebase.
I'm personally in favor of using it - in smaller projects, or on certain subdirectories in larger ones - to avoid having to enter every file manually into the build files. Edit: My preference has changed and I currently tend to avoid it.
On top of the reasons other people here posted, imho the worst issue with glob is that it can yield DIFFERENT file lists on different platforms. As I see it, that's a bug. In OSX glob ignores case sensitivity and in a ubuntu box it doesn't.
Globbing breaks all code inspection in things like CLion that otherwise understand limited subsets of CMakeLists.txt and do not and never will support globbing as it is unsafe.
Write script to dump the globbed list and paste it in, its very simple, and then CLion can actually find the referenced files and infer them as useful. Maybe even put such script into the tree so that the other devs can either run it without being a moron OR set git hooks to make it happen.
In no case should some random file dropped into some directory ever get automatically linked that's how trojans happen.
Also CLion without context jumping to known definitions and what not, is like hiking barefoot /// why bother.
There is code that I want to include in most of my projects. Things like AFNetworking, categories for CoreData and unit testing, etc.
It seems logical to include all of these in a static library, and then use it in each project. I've noticed though, that many third-party libraries (like AFNetworking, and it's predecessor ASIHTTP) are included in projects by copying over all of their source files and then manually linking the necessary libraries to the project target.
This seems to me like the easiest way. It took a fair amount of time to figure out how to include an existing static library into a project. Even after I knew how, it still seems like a pain to do it for every new project. Also, the header search paths that you specify are to a local directory with the static library's files. Wouldn't it be easier, and is there a way, to copy the static library's files into the project? This is the same idea as including the class files directly like most libraries seem to do already, but it would be more organized because everything would be lumped into one library project, instead of having class files everywhere and having to include every one of them.
Static libraries feel like they should be the right way to go. Make a library that can be used with all projects that includes classes that every project will need. Makes sense. I am just conflicted because it seems like the right way to go is to leave everything out of a 'formal' library, and just copy over all of the class files instead.
I guess I am just looking for what experienced developers find to be the best option.
I would be among the first to admit that the process of referencing a static library in Xcode is not entirely intuitive. However, using a static library is the best option, without a doubt.
The main reason is maintainability: when you copy source code of a library to many places, you must remember to update all of them to the latest code when you upgrade to the next version of the library. This may be a rather error-prone process, especially when the underlying library source changes significantly (e.g. new files are added, old files are renamed, etc.)
There's a halfway solution - make an XCode project that builds your static library from source and put that into a shared repository (ie.. git submodule etc) which is included from each project's main repository.
Each of your projects would include this submodule and project. Then they get the latest source code each time they pull that submodule. If you set this up as a build dependency it will build a static library the first time you build and then XCode is smart enough just to include it each subsequent build so you get the benefit of fast build times.
You also get the advantage of having the source right there for stepping though / debugging.
If it's in a separate XCode project and a new version of a library adds or removes a source file you would only need to change that shared project - all your individual projects wouldn't change at all.
What about using CocoaPods? This tool does exactly what you want in a declarative way: you have a file (Podfile) where you declare your dependencies, and the tool downloads all the dependencies and builds a static library that gets added to your project.
I would agree that static libraries feel like they might be the correct way to go for a number of reasons, but can also introduce some issues.
The positives would be creating an easy way to add a library to a project. Although not completely intuitive, it is rather trivial to add a static library to a project after one does it a few times. Add the files, add the search path, done. This could also be useful in certain source control situations. Also, updating a library may be easier.
I think the real problem here is for the open source community. By including, say AFNetworking, for example, as a static library, you lose all access to the implementation files. This is a great feature of including source rather than a library. It lets you change code to how you see fit, and hopefully give back.
I am trying to clean up some of my projects, and one of the things that are puzzling me is how to deal with header files in static libraries that I have added as "project dependencies" (by adding the project file itself). The basic structure is like this:
MyProject.xcodeproj
Contrib
thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj
Classes
MyClass1.h
MyClass1.m
...
Now, the dependencies are all set up and built correctly, but how can I specify the public headers for "thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj" so that they are on the search path when building MyProject.xcodeproj. Right now, I have hard-coded the include directory in the thirdPartyLibrary.xcodeproj, but obviously this is clumsy and non-portable. I assume that, since the headers are public and already built to some temporary location in ~/Library (where the .a file goes as well), there is a neat way to reference this directory. Only.. how? An hour of Googling turned up blank, so any help is greatly appreciated!
If I understand correctly, I believe you want to add a path containing $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR) to the HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS in your projects build settings.
As an example, I took an existing iOS project which contains a static library, which is included just in the way you describe, and set the libraries header files to public. I also noted that the PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH for this project was set to "/usr/local/include" and these files are copied to $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include when the parent project builds the dependent project. So, the solution was to add $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include to HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS in my project's build settings.
HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS = $(BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR)/usr/local/include
Your situation may be slightly different but the exact path your looking for can probably be found in Xcode's build settings. Also you may find it helpful to add a Run Script build phase to your target and note the values of various settings at build time with something like:
echo "BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR " $BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR
echo "HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS " $HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS
echo "PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH " $PUBLIC_HEADERS_FOLDER_PATH
.
.
.
etc.
I think that your solution is sufficient and a generally accepted one. One alternative would be to have all header files located under an umbrella directory that can describe the interface to using the depended-on libraries and put that in your include path. I see this as being similar to /usr/include. Another alternative that I have never personally tried, but I think would work would be to create references to all the headers of thirdPartyLibrary from MyProject so that they appear to be members of the MyProject. You would do this by dragging them from some location into MyProject, and then deselecting the checkbox that says to copy them into the project's top level directory. From one perspective this seems feasible to me because it is as if you are explicitly declaring that your project depends on those specific classes, but it is not directly responsible for compiling them.
One of the things to be wary of when addressing this issue is depending on implementation-specific details of Xcode for locating libraries automatically. Doing so may seem innocuous in the meantime but the workflows that it uses to build projects are subject to change with updates and could potentially break your project in subtle and confusing ways. If they are not well-defined in some documentation, I would take any effect as being coincidental and not worth leveraging in your project when you can enforce the desired behavior by some other means. In the end, you may have to define a convention that you follow or find one that you adopt from someone else. By doing so, you can rest assured that if your solution is documented and reproducible, any developer (including yourself in the future) can pick it up and proceed without tripping over it, and that it will stand the testament of time.
The way we do it is to go into build target settings for the main project and add:
User Header Search Path = "Contrib"
and check that it searches recursively. We don't see performance problems with searching recursively even with many (10-15 in some projects) dependencies.