From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-12 10:54:47
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Part of your patch that I already committed + our fix to "testing.jam",
> yes. Your full second patch, no. The reason we append the library name in
> "testing.jam" instead of doing it in "process_jam_log" is that at the point
> of parsing the old bjam log's
> boost-test(RUN) "test1" : "libs\numeric\ublas\test1\test1.cpp"
> line you have no clue whether the test's *output directory* will be
There's one gotcha. uBLAS actually have duplicate definitions for tests.
There's libs/numeric/ublas/test1/Jamfile, which defines a single target of
type "exe", and there's status/Jamfile (which will be moved to
libs/numeric/ublas, which defines "run" target with exactly the same
This duplication is really bad, so it would be desirable to just "refer" to
ublas/test1/Jamfile from ublas/Jamfile. This is something that Boost.Build V2
Jamfile written by Michael does. But then the target path will be not
I wonder how regression tools can determine the library name in that case?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk