<div>Jesse,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your work, I'm very interested to a CMake for IPOPT.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think that ipopt developers did not show interest to this issue, probably due to un-familarity with CMake. I know it based on my experience with VTK library and I'm belive that it's much better and easier to use that autoconfig tools.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div> </div>
<div>RT</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Andreas: CMake stuff can be available besides to other things, so you do not miss anything, else having an additional choice for user to select his own method to produce makefile</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jesse Perla <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jesseperla@gmail.com">jesseperla@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>> We have no intention to change the build system. What we have now is<br>> based on autotools and has been working pretty well on most platforms,<br>> including Windows via Cygwin or MSys. The Ipopt configure and build<br>
> system is also aligned with the rest of COIN; making any change here<br>> has mayor painful consequences ;-)<br></div>I second that -- I use Mingw/MSYS on Windows and consider support for<br>that platform as well as MinGW GCC to be a 'must-have' in IPOPT.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<div>Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to audaciously suggest that everything should move to CMake and that Mingw/MSYS shouldn't be supported. All I meant was that it was very easy to port to CMake and that you get everything for free after that. And since IPOPT is distributing a set of "Visual Studio" projects, and what I meant to suggest was that CMake was a good alternative to this Visual Studio distribution. It is easily decouple library dependencies, easier to write/maintain, and you get a build on any other platform for free. Anytime I have mentioned variations on windows binaries for debug, etc., the answer has been that it is a pain in the ass. Which it is... but with CMake, it would be a few simple batch file to generate every permutation of windows binaries.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>With that said, I think people in the linux world tend to overestimate the value of mingw/msys for libraries. It is certainly necessary, but the binary incompatibility with Intel/MSVC makes it almost useless for a lot of applications with libraries. Cygwin/msys builds tend to force you to recompile everything on your own which makes concurrent integration with other libraries than IPOPT tough. I received a number of personal emails after my last post, so believe me when I say there is a lot of demand for native windows.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I am over-committed on work right now, but I will post up CMake files and notes as soon as I get a chance. In the meantime, contact me at will: <a href="mailto:jesse.perla@nyu.edu" target="_blank">jesse.perla@nyu.edu</a> and if anyone is interested in using MUMPS, they could try out: <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/winmumps/" target="_blank">http://sourceforge.net/projects/winmumps/</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>May we one day be free from the shackles of autohell and those godawful visual studio project files.</div>
<div>-Jesse</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ipopt mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ipopt@list.coin-or.org">Ipopt@list.coin-or.org</a><br><a href="http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/ipopt" target="_blank">http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/ipopt</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>