Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Build - #include <> vs. ""

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-15 14:44:28

Hi Bill,

It looks like there were some problems with your Jamfile. I'm not sure where
your #include path was picking up the boost root from (perhaps you had set
the INCLUDE environment variable?) but the library wouldn't even compile for
me.

I made the following changes:

1.
< subproject src ;
> subproject libs/thread/src ;

Your line was specifying the thread library root as the root of your
project. Not a problem in principle, but there's a very useful Jamrules file
in the boost root which sets up the following:

BOOST_ROOT ?= $(TOP) ;
BOOST_BUILD_INSTALLATION ?= $(TOP)$(SLASH)build ;
BOOST_BASE_DIR ?= $(BOOST_BUILD_INSTALLATION) ;
STLPORT_ROOT ?= c:/downloads/STLPort-0601 ;

In particular, BOOST_BUILD_INSTALLATION and BOOST_BASE_DIR are important.
Remember when Jam complained that it didn't know the <lib> rule? That was
because it was unable to find boost-base.jam. You could have set all of this
up in a separate Jamrules file for your subproject, but why bother? If you
check out the latest version of this Jamrules file you'll see I've added
some explanatory comments.

2.

   ## Requirements ##
   : <include>..
+       <include>$(BOOST_ROOT)
     <threading>multi
   ## default-BUILD ##

This tells the build system that $(BOOST_ROOT) is in the #include path. Of
course, I could have the build system add the contents of the INCLUDE
environment variable to the #include path for MSVC automatically, but I'm
not sure that we should support that usage.

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Build - #include <> vs. ""

> Build the main library from /libs/thread/src using:
>
> jam -f{allyourbase location}
>
> Touch the file thread.hpp in /boost/thread and run the same command as
> before.
>
> That's pretty much it :).
>
>
> >From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> >Reply-To: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> >To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> >CC: "William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> >Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Build - #include <> vs. ""
> >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:38:58 -0400
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> >To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > > please send a pointer to the latest with
> > > instructions.
> > >
> > > Just using the Jamfiles from Boost.Threads (CVS branch "thread-
> > > initial").  I think you're right about it being a path thing.  A
> > > little more experimentation has shown that the choice of "" and <>
> > > really don't make a difference (I thought it did because I tested
> > > changing one #include, which happened to be for timeconv.inl, a file
> > > local to the source files).  The headers in /boost/thread can be
> > > modified and this won't trigger a rebuild of source files that
> > > include them.  This did work for me in the past, but I can't tell you
> > > precisely when the behavior changed.
> >
> >
> >Please send me /precise/ instructions for reproducing the problem,
> >e.g. "build xxx with the following command-line, then touch yyy.hpp, and
> >rebuild with the same command-line"
> >
> >-Dave