Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, the Boost.Build system and GCC

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-07 07:01:27

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <John_Maddock_at_[hidden]>

>
> Just a thought, but I don't think we should be forced to implement a Jam
> feature for every compiler feature - it's a huge duplication of effort -

Who's duplicating effort? It's something that would be done once for each
compiler.

> there are also some compilers (Sun's spring to mind) that have an
> unfeasably large number of features, some way of injecting compiler
command
> line options in (using CXXFLAGS or whatever) would seem to be desirable
> here: remember that we are not talking about portable features here.

So, what do you have in mind?

Do you want a user-settable variable that contains a bunch of
compiler-specific flags, but produces no subvariant directories?

It would be next to impossible to ensure link compatibility that way. If
your variable changed slightly between invocations of the build system, you
could find yourself trying to link together completely different targets.

Open to suggestions,
Dave