From: Ulrich Eckhardt (doomster_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-30 11:53:42
On Wednesday 30 April 2008 16:52:18 Rene Rivera wrote:
> Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 30 April 2008 00:55:03 brass goowy wrote:
>>> Ulrich Eckhardt writes:
>>>> * When I'm testing different compiler settings trying to get another
>>>> few percent of performance, I don't have to compile another Boost
>>>> version for each compiler setting.
>>> I think you have to rebuild the compile_inplace.cpp file each time you
>>> want to test a different compiler setting. I don't find an advantage
>>> to what you advocate here.
>> The simple advantage is that you don't have to use bjam but you can
>> simply use the buildsystem (if any) you are using for the rest of your
> How does compiling N source files vs. compiling one source file change
> wether you need Boost Build or not? Especially since Boost Build is not
> currently required.
When I want to use 'proper' libraries (static or shared), I think I either
have to use Boost Build or roll my own (I think there are some build files
for some IDEs though). First thing I have to find out is which files to
compile. Then, I might need some macros set, which may or may not be
documented. Further, when upgrading Boost, all this might change, in
particular the files to build have changed repeatedly in the past.
So, the only thing you need to know is that you need to include
<boost/.../compile_in_place.cpp> and you're done. Switching to a new version
of Boost or, in the context of the Python support, switching to a different
Python version doesn't change anything.
That's the simple reason I'm developing this feature. This is just a
convenience shortcut for prototyping. It's not a technically superior
solution but it is a quick solution.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk