[MrQuincle]

What I find a big shortcoming from CMake is that it does not have support for building for multiple architectures at once.

https://cmake.org/pipermail/cmake-developers/2014-September/...

Quote: "The fundamental problem with supporting multiple architectures is that pretty much all of CMake is designed to support one architecture at a time. Modules/*, CMakeCache.txt, etc. are all built around only finding, using, and building one artifact per library (OS X universal binaries work with multiple architectures because they are still only one file). I think even your "toolchain scope" approach would end up being used in practice to wrap the entire CMakeLists.txt file."

[simonask]

CMake replaces `configure` scripts. It would be difficult to imagine what multi-architecture support in a single build directory / command-line invocation would look like.

Instead, what we do is to wrap calls to CMake in a script that makes choices about build directories, which flavours to build by default, which mobile SDKs exist, etc. When producing a release, we notably don't use this, because we are precisely interested in building for each architecture in parallel on different machines.

[MrQuincle]

Yes, for cross-compiling to targets with different configurations we also evoke CMake with lots of options.

However, that you have to wrap calls to CMake in your scripts is quite ugly. Are those scripts cross-platform for starters? As soon as you start to write code to use CMake, this seem to defeat the purpose of a build generator.

[amrox]

OpenCV includes a python script to build a framework for iOS. I agree, it’s not great.

[vetinari]

> It would be difficult to imagine what multi-architecture support in a single build directory / command-line invocation would look like

That's exactly what MacOS fat binaries are. Single binary contains sections for multiple architectures.