When using CMake, always also build single-precision variant.

[anntzer]

Closes #41 (per https://github.com/devernay/cminpack/issues/41#issuecomment-622253014). (Only the second commit matters for the feature, but cleaning the style helped me understand the logic :))

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 94.105% when pulling e3c4260a17651630224cf036a2e7fe7d91dcc719 on anntzer:cmakes into 6a55fa0e0373283f2c8d7992026f2c5ff7b009ac on devernay:master.

[devernay]

Also, it's OK to reformat the CMakelist, but it's easier to review if it's a separate PR.

[xantares]

Are you sure you need both variants at the same time ? What's the use-case ? Maybe a cmake option to select the variant is what we need. I dont want to build the lib twice.

[anntzer]

Are you sure you need both variants at the same time ? What's the use-case ?

The use case is when cminpack is packaged by redistributors, which include at least linux distros and conda. In that case they will typically just provide a "plain" build of the library, which here means only the double-precision version. I would rather have them provide all precisions together, so that I can easily have whatever precision I need (single, in my case) on machines with no compiler available.

Maybe a cmake option to select the variant is what we need. I dont want to build the lib twice.

Per the above I believe the default should be to provide all of them (because otherwise I'd need to go to each and every redistributor and convince them that they should do a non-default build of the library), but we could reasonably add a CMake flag to just build one of them (now implemented).

[devernay]

@xantares are you satisfied by @anntzer 's replies?

To me it looks OK:

• only one build
• two libraries are installed (could be three, including the long double version which IMHO would be a valuable addition, but we can leave that for later)

[devernay]

can you rebase and push the changes?

[anntzer]

done

[devernay]

Side note: @xantares and @anntzer would you agree to be collaborators on this project? This would allow you to merge PRs, but they would still need to be reviewed and approved by someone else.

[devernay]

@anntzer I'm curious, do you have an automatic formatter for CMakeLists or did you do it by hand?

[anntzer]

I did it by hand plus some regexes...

[anntzer]

Thanks for the offer of being a collaborator. I don't claim any expertise in the relevant field (I really just needed a reasonable implementation of lmdif) and already have much on my plate, but can try to occasionally have a look if you need help with something. No time guarantees, though :-)

[anntzer]

@devernay Any chance for a new release with these changes? Thanks!

[devernay]

Done!

[anntzer]

Thanks!