CMake for the C target

[Soroosh129]

This branch adds the option of compiling generated C target code using cmake. This can be enabled by using the cmake: true target property.

This branch is built on top of the standalone-RTI branch, which should be merged before this.

[Soroosh129]

I believe this branch is ready to merge. I have changed the default build system to be CMake and added CMake to REQUIREMENTS.md. Is there any other documentation that needs to be modified?

[lhstrh]

Great progress toward a more modular code base! I left a few minor comments...

[edwardalee]

The example given in Writing-Reactors-in-C assumes cmake is not being used. I think this needs to be updated.

[Soroosh129]

The example given in Writing-Reactors-in-C assumes cmake is not being used. I think this needs to be updated.

Okay, thank you for pointing that out. I have added the CMake-related target parameters to the text. For now, it includes a mention to the variable LF_MAIN_TARGET, which should be renamed to LF_MAIN_REACTOR. I think we need to do that in unison with the C++ target to avoid confusion, perhaps. What do you think @cmnrd?

[lhstrh]

The example given in Writing-Reactors-in-C assumes cmake is not being used. I think this needs to be updated.

Okay, thank you for pointing that out. I have added the CMake-related target parameters to the text. For now, it includes a mention to the variable LF_MAIN_TARGET, which should be renamed to LF_MAIN_REACTOR. I think we need to do that in unison with the C++ target to avoid confusion, perhaps. What do you think @cmnrd?

How about we create an issue for this and just continue with the merge?

[Soroosh129]

The example given in Writing-Reactors-in-C assumes cmake is not being used. I think this needs to be updated.

Okay, thank you for pointing that out. I have added the CMake-related target parameters to the text. For now, it includes a mention to the variable LF_MAIN_TARGET, which should be renamed to LF_MAIN_REACTOR. I think we need to do that in unison with the C++ target to avoid confusion, perhaps. What do you think @cmnrd?

How about we create an issue for this and just continue with the merge?

Okay sounds good. I have created #429.