Re: [jamboost] New response files broke -o option

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-15 10:32:19

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Hi,
> it looks like the new response files handling broke the "-o" option.
> That options causes bjam to write all action it would have executed to a file. 
> That file can be then run by your shell, without need to have bjam around.
> 
> Previously, response files were generated with "echo" commands, so things 
> worked. Now, they are generated internally by bjam, so the generated scripts 
> tries to uses response files that are not created at all.

Darn.

> Any ideas what can be done here? I have two ideas:
> 
> 1. With -o option, make up "echo" invocations that would have the same effect.
> The problem is that IIUC, "echo" command always write a trailing newline,
> so the output won't be exactly the same.
> 
> 2. Add some bjam switch to generate response files only if command line length 
> will be too long otherwise. This might be hard given the current:
> 
> @"@(........)"
> 
> syntax. How do we get rid of the first "@" is bjam decides not to use response 
> file?

I think those just complicate things too much. The point of the @() was 
to simplify the response file handling (and to reduce mem use). How 
about just *not* deleting the response files when the "-o" option is used?

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org