Re: [boost] [context review] Several Questions

Subject: Re: [boost] [context review] Several Questions
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-21 16:50:41

> Message du 21/03/11 21:04
> De : "Artyom" 
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [boost] [context review] Several Questions
> 
> Let's continue...
> -----------------
> b) Building with fcontext is... Too complicated
> 
> Options: context-impl=asm architecture=x86 instruction-set=native 
> address-model=64
> 
> Why should I specify all these parameters? They should be fully 
> auto-configured.
> 
> I understand that BBv2 is far from being too friendly and powerful system
> I still expect that most of parameters should be defined by default
> otherwise there is no chance that users would be actually able to build
> it clearly.

Hi Artyom,

let me you explain why things are like that.

In previous versions of Boost.Context Oliver had build bjam with a Python option that allowed the Jamfile to identify the configuration using a Python script.. The major problem with this a approach is that it forced every one to rebuild Boost.Build with this option. Vladimir and I requested him to change the Jamfile to avoid this dependency. I really think that that decision was the right one, but I can still be wrong.

You are right that setting the parameters is not simple, but if you need to cross compile you will need them. The solution I see now is:

1. Oliver creates a feature request to extend Boost.Build so he is able to get the configuration.
2. In the meantime the people like you and me that want to evaluate the library takes a little more time to find how to build it.
3. When Boost.Build will provide these new features, Oliver will adapt the Jamfiles.

Hoping this difficulty doesn't avoid you and others to make a review of the library.

Thanks,
Vicente