I have been looking for pros & cons of Autotools and CMake. But I would like to know opinions from people having used one (or both) of these tools for projects.
I used Autotools very basically a year ago and I know that one of the good points is that it relies on shell scripting, thus it does not need to be installed to be run and uses portable shell scripting. But it looks like it is too unix oriented, and it would not be possible to run the configure file on Windows.
I have now to choose a build system tool for an open source project that will have to be compiled for at least Linux & Windows. It is written in C++, and uses a Qt GUI front-end, the rest of it is "generic".
Thanks for you help.
Updated 16th of January 2019: Refined advice as tools evolve.
I have used autotools before for a considerable amount of time.
Currently I make intensive use of meson and cmake only when I need it.
Some personal advice:
for big teams, stick to CMake if you want to make use of the generators for XCode. If you do not need it, I would use Meson directly. Meson, as of version 0.49, also supports finding CMake configuration files (though I did not test yet how well this works). Also, Visual Studio seems to be sufficiently well-supported at this point in time, though, again, I did not try myself. The advantage of CMake is that it has Visual Studio integration.
Drop autotools. Meson covers well everything already. Their cross-compilation model is amazingly understandable. In CMake, last time I checked, everything was quite more difficult.
I have also tried scons, waf, and tup.
The most full-featured, cross-platform system, is CMake, but the DSL from meson will be easier to use for people used to python and others. Meson is starting to support VS also (a VS2015 generator) and some projects already have experimental support for it, for example gstreamer. Gstreamer is compiled in windows as well with meson. Right now there is VS2015 generator and VS2017 but I did not try myself the generators lately. As of meson 0.37.1 needed some work, but they are improving them and current version is already 0.40.
Meson
Pros:
The DSL does not get in the way at all. In fact, it is very nice and familiar, based in python.
Well-thought cross compilation support.
The objects are all strongly typed: you cannot make string substitution mistakes easily, since objects are entities such as 'depencency', 'include directory', etc.
It is very obviuos how to add a module for one of your tools.
Cross-compilation seems more straightforward to use.
Really well-thought. The designer and main writer of Meson knows what
he talks about very well when designing a build system.
Very, very fast, especially in incremental builds.
The documentation is 10 times better that what you can find in cmake. Go visit http://mesonbuild.com and you will find tutorial, howtos and a good reference. It is not perfect but it is really discoverable.
Cons:
Not as mature as CMake, though, I consider it already fully usable for C++.
Not so many modules available, though, gnome, qt and the common ones are already there.
Project generators: seems VS generator is not working that well as of now. CMake project generators are far more mature.
Has a python3 + ninja dependency.
Cmake
Pros:
Generates projects for many different IDEs. This is a very nice feature for teams.
Plays well with windows tools, unlike autotools.
Mature, almost de-facto standard.
Microsoft is working on CMake integration for Visual Studio.
Cons:
It does not follow any well known standard or guidelines.
No uninstall target.
The DSL is weird, when you start to do comparisons and such, and the strings vs list thing or escape chars, you will make many mistakes, I am pretty sure.
Cross compilation sucks.
Autotools
Pros:
Most powerful system for cross-compilation, IMHO.
The generated scripts don't need anything else than make, a shell and, if you need it to build, a compiler.
The command-line is really nice and consistent.
A standard in unix world, lots of docs.
Really powerful command-line: changing directories of installation, uninstall,
renaming binaries...
If you target unix, packaging sources with this tool is really convenient.
Cons:
It won't play well with microsoft tools. A real showstopper.
The learning curve is... well... But actually I can say that CMake was not that easy either.
The use of recursive make is pervasive in legacy projects. Automake supports non-recursive builds, but it's not a very widely used approach.
About the learning curve, there are two very good sources to learn from:
The website here
The book here
The first source will get you up and running faster. The book is a more in-depth discussion.
From Scons, waf and tup, Scons and tup are more like make. Waf is more like CMake and the autotools. I tried waf instead of cmake at first. I think it is overengineered in the sense that it has a full OOP API. The scripts didn't look short at all and it was really confusing for me the working directory stuff and related things. At the end, I found that autotools and CMake are a better choice. My favourite from these 3 build systems is tup.
Tup
Pros
Really correct.
Insanely fast. You should try it to believe it.
The scripting language relies on a very easy idea that can be understood in 10 minutes.
Cons
It does not have a full-featured config framework.
I couldn't find the way to make targets such as doc, since
they generate files I don't know of and they must be listed in the output before being generated, or at least, that's my conclusion for now. This was a really annoying limitation, if it is, since I am not sure.
All in all, the only things I am considering right now for new projects is are Cmake and Meson. When I have a chance I will try tup also, but it lacks the config framework, which means that it makes things more complex when you need all of that stuff. On the other hand, it is really fast.
I would not recommend autotools for Windows. Use CMake.
Why? Windows doesn't have a native sh.exe, and the emulation is slow. It's also very easy to get configury stuff wrong. I'm not saying it's impossible in CMake, but CMake surely abstracts more away, so you worry about less. CMake documentation can be a bit hard to read, but once it's set up, you should be fine for all toolchains ever supported by CMake. CMake also integrates testing, packaging etc...
Autotools is slow on Windows, does not work easily with MSVC, and has weird quirks with Windows (and other OSes) that are hard to debug, and hard to fix. libtool also sucks on Windows, where it often refuses to build a shared library even, if you think it should and could. Toolchain relocation issues are also prevalent with libtool, which may look at the wrong files in a user's toolchain. CMake is a lot easier in this regard. It assumes normal things about the target platform and creates generic and good build instructions.
Also, CMake has coloured output :) and nice progress percentages.
PS: I just have some experience with CMake and autotools on Windows as a user. CMake tends to work, autotools tends to bite your ear off when you're not looking, and smile at you when it fails due to some strange error...
Related
Is there a convenient way to find what the minimum compatible CMake version should be (besides testing it with every single version)? I'm looking for a tool that will parse my CMakeLists.txt, find all the features I'm using, look up the CMake version they were added, and spit out the maximum. A quick look though cmake --help didn't show an option to do this. Is there an external tool that will do this for me?
As of now, there is no such tool. This is because there are a number of problems with creating such a tool.
Most importantly is that CMake has never made any promises of forwards-compatibility. Listfiles authored with a newer version of CMake have never been guaranteed to work with older versions, regardless what cmake_minimum_required setting appears. This is due to several factors: new features added, improved logic in Find modules and compiler detection, and so on. Basically anything that doesn't break old code, but makes newer code more intelligent and robust, even without source changes.
Thus, a tool that only checked for new features (like generator expressions) would miss out on changes to other parts of the overall system.
This means any such tool would have to model CMake so closely that it would be easier to simply automate running an old CMake version and testing the build. If you feel you need to do this, you should automate it yourself.
Taking a step back, CMake is amazingly, ludicrously easy to upgrade and you can save yourself and others a lot of backwards compatibility headaches like this by simply sidestepping the issue. Use a recent version, declare it as a minimum and encourage your users to upgrade. On Linux, Kitware provides statically linked executables for x86 and arm that require nothing besides libc. I have never heard of these executables not working. I use them on old Raspberry Pis. I have yet to see any remotely valid reason to support versions of CMake older than a year or so.
I am working on a project on linux and I dont understand
what really is cmake?
I have clion IDE do I explicitly need to learn about cmake?
Does Clion have cmake internally?
I am working on object detection with open detection.
CMake is sort of a wrapper around older, more complex, and often more powerful make systems. Make systems are a big topic, but in short, it is their job to notice files and do something about it (compile, link, deploy, etc)
CLion is a full GUI IDE which in turn uses CMake to do its dirty work of tracking files and what to do about them. Its primary purpose is to wrap up your compilation (via cmake) as well as give you text editors suited to the task at hand. Importantly, it also is a GUI front end for your debugging needs.
I'm interested in learning the art of Makefile projects. However, I have one concern.
For background:
On my computer, I have nmake installed, which I'm assuming came with Visual Studio when I installed it. I am possibly thinking of having my C++ projects use the makefile structure using nmake. But what if I wanted to move to other popular versions of make? gmake? This leads me to my main question:
If I learned one implementation of make (nmake, gmake) and moved to another, to what extent can I expect a difference in makefile syntax? In conventions/practices?
If there is a substantial difference between each implementation, I have a followup question (a bit opinionated):
Which implementation of make should I learn first and why?
cmake is not an implementation of make at all. It's a completely different tool: cmake is a tool that creates project build control files, such as makefiles, Visual Studio project files, Xcode project files, Eclipse project files, etc. Cmake syntax has no relationship whatsoever to make syntax.
nmake is a "sort of" make tool, but it's also different than other versions of make; most other versions of make (GNU make, Solaris make, BSD make, etc.) conform at least to the POSIX specification for make. nmake (as far as I'm aware) doesn't do that. However the basic syntax of nmake for defining rules is similar to other versions of make.
GNU make is a highly portable version of make that supports POSIX, plus a large number of non-portable extensions. However, GNU make itself is highly portable: in addition to Windows (both native and cygwin) and UNIX (BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc.) systems, it also supports VMS and other operating systems.
Of the above, nmake is the least portable option; it's available only on Windows. cmake is a good choice if you want to use a variety of development tools, but it is not in any way make-like. If you want to learn make and makefiles and be portable across a wide variety of platforms, your best bet is GNU make.
Have a C++ source I probably can't build in Code::Blocks. If I use it as an editor, would it be helpful in gaining understanding of the code? (Like Intellisense).
How does it compare to Visual Studio in this respect?
How should I go about doing it?
Can it somehow utilize gdb information (When I run it in gdb, there is a lot of information available)
It is Linux gcc/Makefile based.
The main executable is in one directory, but there are many includes, libraries etc.
If I just included all sources I would get sources for other executables (with similar code).
I expect to increase my understanding about where things are located over time.
Note 1: This is Linux, but I can easily edit on Windows. And I am trying to build under Cygwin.
Code::Blocks sounds too light weight for your tastes. Try NetBeans. It has very good hinting tools, doesn't have the infamous copy+paste bug, Its easier to navigate files, and can deal with makefiles better then C::B. Additionally it has a nice interface for debugging, and an exceptional one for performance monitoring.
I would reccomend you install a linux distro through WUBI and forgo using Windows.
I have used NetBeans, Eclipse, Visual Studio, Code::Blocks, and CodeLite. I don't normally write software under Windows anymore, but when I did CodeLite was the most elegant one I found. Debugging was a snap (mingw + GDB), all the meta information about your project is stored in an sqlite db (which I think is a great design), and it supports makefiles.
I think NetBeans would work great as well, but definitely give CodeLite a shot.
http://www.codelite.org/
We are currently working in a team where we use both Visual Studio and Code::Blocks, is there a way to replicate changes between those project files? So if one adds a file to the project file it will also get adjusted in the project file of the other IDE?
Please note: We want our project to work on multiple IDE's, platforms and compilers. Thus a general solution is welcome too.
I assume you're using a VCS? If so my intuition would be to write a script that syncs up your project files (based on modification date?) and run it as a checkin hook if any of the project files are changed in the commit.
http://wordaligned.org/articles/a-subversion-pre-commit-hook
Well this sounds like exactly the type of problem CMake was created to solve. There is definitely a learning curve which I blame mainly on the obtuse documentation but CMake is used in a lot of open source projects now, such as KDE, OGRE and many, many others so there are a lot of usage examples out there. There is also a basic tutorial here.
CMake uses it's own syntax (which is fairly complex though still easier than autotools in my opinion) which is used with project file generators, which supports make, visual studio, codeblocks, eclipse and possibly others. It also has a installer generator which can make NSIS installers, Mac OS X bundles and debian/red hat packages (and again, possibly others) which I find quite useful.