Re: [boost] intel-linux-tools.jam

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-19 16:48:33

On Friday 17 January 2003 11:07, David Abrahams wrote:
> Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Friday 17 January 2003 14:59, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> No, please restore that feature.  The build system offers no
> >> guarantees about the order in which specified libraries will be added
> >> to NEEDLIBS, and we'd rather work in all circumstances than save
> >> whatever miniscule amount of link time it takes to deal with the
> >> repetition.
> >
> > Done.
> > Nevertheless I use bjam also for my own project (as you might know) and
> > there I've always removed the duplication because I don't want to allow
> > developers to create circulare dependencies. And the system has worked
> > fine (thanks again jamboosters)
>
> It's not just about circular dependencies.  If library A depends on
> library B, when you link them into an executable there's no guarantee
> that they'll appear in the right order.

OK but I never had any trouble with it so far (although NEEDLIBS is only used 
once in my linkline to prevent people from creating circular dependencies)