In project with many multiple targets, I wish to add include libraries for a certain target only. I don't want to slow down compilation by adding many include libraries to all projects, and I do want that if I did not specify a required library as a dependency to the executable, it will fail in compile time, and not only in link time.
Is there any way to do that in CMake? Something like target_link_libraries, but only for include directories?
First of all, I would not bother with a potential increase in compilation time, because you added many include-directories. Of course, you should test if it really is an issue.
You may try to specify the COMPILE_FLAGS property directly on the source files, but this is likely not cross-platform and needs to be done on each source-file.
Alternatively, consider splitting up your project in subdirectories and write a separate CMakeLists.txt for each subdir. In that case, the include_directories() call is limited to the scope of the current project (and its subprojects) and you would have more fine-grained control over each project.
There may be an issue with requiring failure at compilation time: E.g. when using static libraries A, depending on B, depending on C: When someones links an exe/dll to A, the libs B and C are needed, but this is not necessarily detectable at compile-time... and difficult to solve generically with CMake.
Related
Suppose I'm writing an app, and managing its build with CMake; and I also want to use a library, mylib, via the FetchContent mechanism.
Now, my own CMakeLists.txt defines a bunch of targets, and so does mylib's CMakeLists.txt. If I were to install mylib, then find_package(mylib), I would only get its exported targets, and even those would be prefixed with mylib:: (customarily, at least). But with FetchContent, both my app's and mylib's (internal and export-intended) targets are in the "global namespace", and may clash.
So, what can I do to separate those targets - other than meticulously name all of my own app's targets defensively?
I would really like it if it were possible to somehow "shove" all the mylib targets into a namespace of my choice.
Note: Relates to: How to avoid namespace collision when using CMake FetchContent?
In the current CMake (<=3.24) world, there are no features for adjusting the names of the targets in other black-box projects, whether included via find_package, add_subdirectory, or FetchContent. Thus, for now, it is incumbent on you to avoid name-clashes in targets, install components, test names, and anywhere else this could be a problem.
Craig Scott says as much in his (very good) talk at CppCon 2019, see here: https://youtu.be/m0DwB4OvDXk?t=2186
The convention he proposes is to use names that are prefixed with SomeProj_. He doesn't suggest to literally use ${PROJECT_NAME}_, and I wouldn't either, because doing so makes the code harder to read and grep (which is extremely useful for understanding a 3rd-party build).
To be a good add_subdirectory or FetchContent citizen, however, it is not enough to simply namespace your targets as SomeProj_Target; you must also provide an ALIAS target SomeProj::Target. There are a few reasons for this:
Your imported targets from find_package will almost certainly be named SomeProj::Target. It should be possible for consumers of your library to switch between FetchContent and find_package easily, without changing other parts of their code. The ALIAS target lets you expose the same interface in both cases. This will become especially pressing when CMake 3.24 lands with its new find_package-to-FetchContent redirection features.
CMake's target_link_libraries function treats names that contain :: as target names always and will throw configure-time error if the target does not exist. Without the ::, it will be treated as a target preferentially, but will turn into a linker flag if the target doesn't exist. Thus, it is preferable to link to targets with :: in their names.
Yet, only IMPORTED and ALIAS targets may have :: in their names.
Points (2) and (3) are good enough for me to define aliases.
Unfortunately, many (most?) CMake builds are not good FetchContent citizens and will flaunt this convention. Following this convention yourself reduces the chance of integration issues between your project and any other, but obviously does nothing to prevent issues between two third party projects that might define conflicting targets. In these cases, you're just out of luck.
An example of defining a library called Target that will play nice with FetchContent:
add_library(SomeProj_Target ${sources})
add_library(SomeProj::Target ALIAS SomeProj_Target)
set_target_properties(
SomeProj_Target
PROPERTIES
EXPORT_NAME Target
OUTPUT_NAME Target # optional: makes the file libTarget.so on disk
)
install(TARGETS SomeProj_Target EXPORT SomeProj_Targets)
install(EXPORT SomeProj_Targets NAMESPACE SomeProj::)
For a more complete example that plays nice with install components, include paths, and dual shared/static import, see my blog post.
See these upstream issues to track the progress/discussion of these problems.
#22687 Project-level namespaces
#16414 Namespace support for target names in nested projects
As #AlexReinking , and, in fact, Craig Scott, suggest - there's no decent current solution.
You can follow the following CMake issues through which the solution will likely be achieved:
#22687 Project-level namespaces (more current)
#16414 Namespace support for target names in nested projects (longer discussion which influenced the above, recommended reading)
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.
Is there any way to make CMake "forget" about a file in the dependency tree? My original problem (to avoid the XY situation) is the following: I want to timestamp the build of a set of tools which have complicated dependencies among them and to other tools. Right now, I want to use a pure timestamp, but later I might want add some info from the repository (SVN). Whatever system I end up implementing needs to have the following characteristics (my "X"):
No unnecessary rebuilding: the executables should not be rebuilt on every make if the only change would be the timestamp.
Update on any change: if any tool is going to be rebuilt or relinked, either by changes to its code or to one of its dependencies, the timestamp needs to be updated.
My current solution goes along the lines of creating a custom command+target that invokes CMake at make time (so the command calls CMake itself with -P script.cmake) to generate a timestamp.h file. The main files of my tools would include that file, and the projects would depend on the target so that it gets rebuilt first.
However, this has its drawbacks: if I do update the timestamp file on every call to make, then CMake's dependency scanner would know about that file even if I do not list it as an explicit dependency of my tools. Thus, every make would trigger at least a recompilation of the respective "main" files and the corresponding relink. With tens of tools, this means slowing down the build when I may be working on just two or three of them at once.
So, I was thinking that my solution would be to somehow make CMake forget about that file when building its dependency tree for the "main" file of each tool. I would keep the dependency on the custom target that does depend on the file, so that it would be regenerated first on each call to make. However, the build tool would not consider that file as relevant to determine whether it is necessary to actually rebuild each individual tool. Thus, tools only with other changes would be rebuilt (satisfying my first criterion), and any change that causes a rebuild of a tool would obviously use the version just generated (fulfilling the second criterion).
To my chagrin, I have not found a way to make the dependency scanner forget about this file, so my solution cannot be put to use. How would I go about doing such a thing? Is it even possible, or is it completely the wrong way to go about this? I am using CMake 3.4, and my code is currently C++, but I would like a solution that did not rely on C/C++ specifics, since I have a different project (written in Fortran) in which I would also like to have build timestamping.
I've had almost the same problem than you are. Simply solved by pushing the timestamp header file into standalone target containing only this header generator command. After that you have several choices:
1.. Exclude that project from the build by the IDE you are using. For example, for the Visual Studio you can do it by several ways:
1.1. Project->Project Dependencies...->uncheck project with that header (not always works: Error while removing project dependency in VS2010)
1.2. Build->Configuration Manager...->uncheck project with that header
2.. Create an environment variable and use the condition with that variable around the add_dependencies command in the CMakeLists.txt file.
3.. Generate 2 standalone solutions through the cmake generator with included and with excluded add_dependencies in the CMakeLists.txt file.
I've used particulary [1.2]. When i need build and debug, then i uncheck the dependecy. By default, dependecy always checked, so there is no problem to miss timestamp build for a build server.
Note:
The timestamp header will be included in all projects you want to include that header (for example, through the add_library and add_executable) and you still can observe it in the IDE under a project item menu even if a project depends on the timestamp project indirectly. This is useful if you don't want to search for the timestamp project with the header to open it from there and want to open it from any project which has included that header.
So, in case of removing the timestamp header from the add_library or add_executable you won't have that opportunity.
The CMake manual of Qt 5 uses find_package and says:
Imported targets are created for each Qt module. Imported target names should be preferred instead of using a variable like Qt5<Module>_LIBRARIES in CMake commands such as target_link_libraries.
Is it special for Qt or does find_package generate imported targets for all libraries? The documentation of find_package in CMake 3.0 says:
When the package is found package-specific information is provided through variables and Imported Targets documented by the package itself.
And the manual for cmake-packages says:
The result of using find_package is either a set of IMPORTED targets, or a set of variables corresponding to build-relevant information.
But I did not see another FindXXX.cmake-script where the documentation says that a imported target is created.
find_package is a two-headed beast these days:
CMake provides direct support for two forms of packages, Config-file Packages
and Find-module Packages
Source
Now, what does that actually mean?
Find-module packages are the ones you are probably most familiar with. They execute a script of CMake code (such as this one) that does a bunch of calls to functions like find_library and find_path to figure out where to locate a library.
The big advantage of this approach is that it is extremely generic. As long as there is something on the filesystem, we can find it. The big downside is that it often provides little more information than the physical location of that something. That is, the result of a find-module operation is typically just a bunch of filesystem paths. This means that modelling stuff like transitive dependencies or multiple build configurations is rather difficult.
This becomes especially painful if the thing you are trying to find has itself been built with CMake. In that case, you already have a bunch of stuff modeled in your build scripts, which you now need to painstakingly reconstruct for the find script, so that it becomes available to downstream projects.
This is where config-file packages shine. Unlike find-modules, the result of running the script is not just a bunch of paths, but it instead creates fully functional CMake targets. To the dependent project it looks like the dependencies have been built as part of that same project.
This allows to transport much more information in a very convenient way. The obvious downside is that config-file scripts are much more complex than find-scripts. Hence you do not want to write them yourself, but have CMake generate them for you. Or rather have the dependency provide a config-file as part of its deployment which you can then simply load with a find_package call. And that is exactly what Qt5 does.
This also means, if your own project is a library, consider generating a config file as part of the build process. It's not the most straightforward feature of CMake, but the results are pretty powerful.
Here is a quick comparison of how the two approaches typically look like in CMake code:
Find-module style
find_package(foo)
target_link_libraries(bar ${FOO_LIBRARIES})
target_include_directories(bar ${FOO_INCLUDE_DIR})
# [...] potentially lots of other stuff that has to be set manually
Config-file style
find_package(foo)
target_link_libraries(bar foo)
# magic!
tl;dr: Always prefer config-file packages if the dependency provides them. If not, use a find-script instead.
Actually there is no "magic" with results of find_package: this command just searches appropriate FindXXX.cmake script and executes it.
If Find script sets XXX_LIBRARY variable, then caller can use this variable.
If Find script creates imported targets, then caller can use these targets.
If Find script neither sets XXX_LIBRARY variable nor creates imported targets ... well, then usage of the script is somehow different.
Documentation for find_package describes usual usage of Find scripts. But in any case you need to consult documentation about concrete script (this documentation is normally contained in the script itself).
This question is about the project command and, by extension, what the concept of a project means in cmake. I genuinely don't understand what a project is, and how it differs from a target (which I do understand, I think).
I had a look at the cmake documentation for the project command, and it says that the project command does this:
Set a name, version, and enable languages for the entire project.
It should go without saying that using the word project to define project is less than helpful.
Nowhere on the page does it seem to explain what a project actually is (it goes through some of the things the command does, but doesn't say whether that list is exclusive or not). The cmake.org examples take us through a basic build setup, and while it uses the project keyword it also doesn't explain what it does or means, at least not as far as I can tell.
What is a project? And what does the project command do?
A project logically groups a number of targets (that is, libraries, executables and custom build steps) into a self-contained collection that can be built on its own.
In practice that means, if you have a project command in a CMakeLists.txt, you should be able to run CMake from that file and the generator should produce something that is buildable. In most codebases, you will only have a single project per build.
Note however that you may nest multiple projects. A top-level project may include a subdirectory which is in turn another self-contained project. In this case, the project command introduces additional scoping for certain values. For example, the PROJECT_BINARY_DIR variable will always point to the root binary directory of the current project. Compare this with CMAKE_BINARY_DIR, which always points to the binary directory of the top-level project. Also note that certain generators may generate additional files for projects. For example, the Visual Studio generators will create a .sln solution file for each subproject.
Use sub-projects if your codebase is very complex and you need users to be able to build certain components in isolation. This gives you a very powerful mechanism for structuring the build system. Due to the increased coding and maintenance overhead required to make the several sub-projects truly self-contained, I would advise to only go down that road if you have a real use case for it. Splitting the codebase into different targets should always be the preferred mechanism for structuring the build, while sub-projects should be reserved for those rare cases where you really need to make a subset of targets self-contained.