From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 08:28:12
David Abrahams writes:
> "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.
* Incremental testing is not reliable:
* Marked as expected-to-fail tests are rerun. There is not point
to rerun tests if the library is marked as unusable or the test
is marked as expected to fail on particular toolset. BBv1
running in testing mode should accept the list of tests which
* The obsolete tests (test which do not exists any more) are still
included in the test results. The tests which have been removed
still have their test results in the component directories.
* Jamfiles/rule files are not included as dependencies.
* bjam doesn't track dependencies if they were included as
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk