From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-20 22:40:00
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:19:07 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:22:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> >> Boost.Build does dependency analysis; there's no reason to re-run
> >> everything from scratch.
> > It seems to be broken at the moment,
> If you mean, "can't trace dependencies generated by macros" like
> #include FOO(bar)
> then yes, it's "broken." If there are other problems, I'm surprised
> to hear it.
No I mean straight up changes to files. I've resorted to frequently using
bjam -a after I checked in a change that broke something. After I tracked it
down I realized that an incremental bjam failed to force a test rebuild and
run even though it should have -- thus I missed the error before I checked in.
On the other side of the coin, I see stuff rebuild that I think should not be
impacted by a change. I haven't spent time to be sure that an unneeded
dependency hasn't crept in, but it seems unlikely. Honestly I don't
understand how this started happening because I haven't rebuilt bjam in ages...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk