From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-19 07:43:38
> > Indeed, it would scarcely make sense to
> > build one target with different "unsigned-char" option, simply some
> > want a particular value.
> Maybe I misunderstand you. What I think you're saying is that a main target
> (e.g. a static library) should only ever be built with one setting for
> whether char is a signed or unsigned type. I'm not sure if you see the
> signedness of char as a free feature or not. I would not call it a free
> feature, since it is a fundamental aspect of the ABI, though I can see how
> you could "get away" with treating this particular feature differently. If
> I understand you correctly, then I think I disagree, because the static
> library may be linked into different executables, and the executables may
> have different "signedness of char" requirements.
Not very good example, I agree.
> Ah, maybe this whole "redefinition of free" idea is moot in light of our
> agreement to pursue option 1? That would be a nice simplification ;-)
Well, as I just found, "revise free/path feature definition" is in the
todo.txt :-) But it isn't really important now, so let's postpone this
question untill better time. Therefore, I think this thread is exhausted, see
futher concrete proposals in "Boost.Build: an invitation" thread.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk