Re: [boost] Re: dependency analysis problem (was Re: Regression report for Releases?)

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 06:27:10

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:42:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > No I mean straight up changes to files.  
> 
> I don't know what you mean by that.  

What I was trying to say was I changed a header file that is unaffected by a
macro and obviously included...see below, however...

> If it's header files you were changing, then discovering that they 
> are relevant to the build depends on Boost.Build's ability to detect 
> that they are #included (possibly indirectly) in something that is 
> named in a Jamfile.  That could be thwarted by #include 
> SOME_MACRO(...), of which we have many examples in Boost.  

Now that I slept on it, that's probably what happened. Awhile back we did add
some changes that conditionally include entire files based on a macro.  But
it's of the form

#ifdef SOME_MACRO
#include file1
#else
#include file2
#endif

which didn't immediately match the pattern above in my brain ;-)

> If you were changing source files listed directly in a Jamfile and
> there was no recompilation, or the headers were #included directly,
> then we have a deeper problem.

No, haven't seen that....

Jeff