From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 12:07:14
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue May 22 2007, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> Sure, but with a "generic" toolset that used CXX/CXXFLAGS etc to run
>>>> an arbitrary compiler, we surely could support that?
Yes, we could.
>> I'm suggesting we do the same thing.
> We have different constraints. We don't have low-level build
> descriptions as in Makefiles.
Sure, but having such a toolset would give others a place to start in
developing their own toolset.
>> Existing supported toolsets remain unchanged. The 99% case where
>> the user is using a version of gcc but with custom invoke/compiler
>> options could be detected (autoconf does this already) and forwarded
>> to our gcc toolset presumably.
>> I had meant to test this out by now, but you know time etc...
> You're not answering my questions. What about the
> platform/compiler-independent build properties when they appear in
> Jamfiles? Are they ignored, or do they get translated somehow, or
That lost me... Could you give an example?
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk