[Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue Sep 6 20:04:02 CEST 2016
Jake Petroules wrote:
> Again, useless, because Qbs is more powerful and at a much higher level of
> abstraction, so a generator would only be useful in the reverse direction.
Of course, the generator would not use all the features of Qbs, just the
minimum subset that is needed to do the work.
> It's like trying to make a compiler to transform Motorola 68k assembler to
> C++. Only the reverse transformation of that can done in a useful manner.
That is not a reasonable comparison. Assembly code is not designed to be
compiled to anything other than the corresponding machine code. Code can be
self-modifying, there are hardware-dependent I/O ports, etc. The CMake
language is designed exactly to perform configuration and then output build
files for all sorts of build systems: make, Ninja, various IDEs, etc.
But of course, all the configury would be done at CMake time and Qbs would
just be tasked to do the actual build, as a make replacement. Will somebody
be interested enough in implementing that? Probably not. But if make is
really the issue, it could be done.
More information about the Development