Subject: Re: [boost] Building stage by default, pt. 2
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-17 14:05:36
on Thu Apr 16 2009, Vladimir Prus <vladimir-AT-codesourcery.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> Unfortunately, your suggestion above is still to output something at
> the *end*.
Yeah, if possible. I hadn't seen your issue with that idea when I wrote
this. Regardless, the text is an improvement even if it must go at the
> The apparent problem is that if half of the libraries fail to build, and then
> we happily output explanation of what should be added to include and library
Not necessarily. I didn't specify that one way or the other.
> users might be very confused -- and might even miss "failed" messages.
> Ideally, we should make Boost.Jam record information about failed targets,
> and then say to user -- and the end of output -- which libraries failed to
> build -- but that's Boost.Jam change :-(
It doesn't have to be. I *think* you could add that functionality to
Boost.Build without bjam changes.
> So, I am not sure I can implement the above suggestion at this point. Or,
> am I making up non-existent problems?
Well, you can definitely change the words if not the placement.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk