From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-20 11:30:26
Beman Dawes wrote:
> That's a nice sentiment, but how do you propose Boost config (or any other
> configuration system) could reliably detect wchar_t status for the Intel
> It isn't good enough to pre-analyze the compiler via a trial compilation,
> because compiler options may have changed when the real compilation is
I agree in that the options may have changed.
Then it's the user's fault of course.
Maybe I misunderstood what David said.
I understood that he rejected the build system
to be able to handle _any_ compiler flag combination I choose,
but to require some flags to be set (like the one that sets
wchar_t on windows).
If I link to the wrong version which was compiled with different,
incompatible flags then it's my fault.
OTOH I wish boost to build automagically when I call
the "configure CXXFLAGS=<the same flags as in my project> && make"
even if this removes XXX (e.g. wchar_t) support from the lib.
If I decide not to use this or that feature of my
compiler by choosing some compiler flag, I do not want to
be forced to revise this decisison simply because boost
requires some flags.
So a pre-analysis of the compiler via trial compilation
with a user-provided set of compiler flags still makes pretty
much sense to me.
-- Build your own Expression Template Library with Daixtrose! Visit http://daixtrose.sourceforge.net/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk