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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 10:03:46

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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 ;-)

No, that's a different story.  In that case BB is supposed to be
conservative, and act as though both file1 and file2 were included.
If you can reproduce it, I'd like to see that.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com