From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-29 16:43:30
David Abrahams wrote:
> > That's my thoughts too. Having separate platform-dependent 'config'
> > headers on one side and a monolithic build description file with
> > embedded platform-specific options on the other just doesn't feel
> > right.
> I think the difference is one of quantity of information. Unfortunately,
> configuration info still tends to be large, and regardless it can be done
> once for an entire project. Most targets will require little or no
> platform-specific tweaking in the build system. It doesn't feel right to
> litter the world with tiny files just to handle the fact that, e.g. one
> compiler needs -DNO_STD_MINMAX or some such for a particular
> target... and much of that sort of thing can be done with header files if
> we want to, so the solution Vesa proposed for config.hpp is still
> available to us.
I see your point.
> > One requirement I would like to add, though, is a possibility to
> > specify a different set of sources for the same target depending on
> > the build variant (I am almost sure that's already possible, just want
> > to see it as a requirement).
> Well, no, it's not possible yet. I'm not sure it's neccessary, since the
> same effect can be accomplished via #if directives embedded in the
> source files. I didn't consider it a high-priority item for that reason,
> but it certainly has some appeal from an aesthetic POV.
Yep, it's not a high-priority, just a nice thing to have. Someday, someone
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk