Don't waste your time. While the idea behind cccl is nice, the
overhead is unbelievably expensive. As a comparison it took 2 hours to
compile Open MPI on Windows using cccl and makefile, while it takes
less than 4 minutes to compile exactly the same set of functionalities
using the project generated by cmake and the native cl compiler.
Using cccl was the original approach that I envisioned for the Windows
port. Unfortunately, due to long compilation times, I give up this
approach and move to using the native tools (project + microsoft
On Nov 25, 2008, at 14:18 , Shiqing Fan wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
> Sorry for replying late.
>> what keeps you from using the autotools-based build system
>> with MSVC? All you should need is a wrapper like cccl.
> I didn't know this 'cccl' before, but I did give a try last weekend
> with Cygwin.
> Unfortunately, I couldn't make it work for Open MPI (latest trunk).
> I think cccl might work for small projects, but for large and
> complicated project, it couldn't work easily. By simply replacing
> compiler name and flags cannot make it go trough compilation and
> build phase, something has to be done manually with some other
> scripts. Maybe there's some good way to cope it with Open MPI, if
> anyone has succeeded with that, please let me know about it, it's
> very interesting for me anyway. :-)
> On the other hand, there are more advantages to use CMake on
> Windows, e.g. easy to use with a GUI, better integration with Visual
> Studio IDE, automatically produce installer(tarballs) with CPACK,
> make tests with CTEST, etc.
> devel mailing list