-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pass CMake flags through mono.proj #45026
Comments
Now we have multiple repos unified in the runtime repo with a concept of 'subsets'; so in theory we can enhance this syntax by adding support for subset name. Something like: ./build.sh --cmakeargs:mono -D<variable-name-used-in-cmake>=<variable-value> but even with this manual instrumentation, we would need to agree on certain granularity: is subset enough? or should we have support for components within a subset, like coreclr_pal? to what depth (since our structure is quite hierarchical)? This kind of artificial instrumentation (in .cmd as well as .sh scripts) gets complicated fast with zero coverage for any CI use case, plus the unnecessary maintenance cost, IMO. ProblemOut of all cmake-aware subsets, only # only libs is pedantic about it, other subsets do not exit with status 1 in this case
$ ./build.sh -cmakeargs -DMY_UNKNOWN_VAR=2 Proposed Solution
If we still believe that
#2 is what I have used in past (for PAL test suite build + the rest of the repo in single shot before |
@am11 At least for #44747 I was suggesting adding an MSBuild property that could be set from the commandline (eg I wonder if the more general case could be covered by agreeing on some common MSBuild property vocabulary for CMake. So for example |
@lambdageek, the prevalent/preferred way of working, so far, has been to burn all supported properties in cmake scripts and if there are varying values of same properties, define that set of properties as a feature, e.g.
This is nice, though we already have this support for Lines 459 to 463 in d73c65e
Making these as a 'standard solution' -- while we have existing / competing concepts of |
@lambdageek Is this something we are going to do for 6.0? |
See #44747 (comment) and #42711
cc: @lambdageek @vargaz
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: