From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-09 01:54:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> > Maybe getting "exe" working with "gcc" is simple enough? Don't know
> what you
> > guys usualy use for a compiler though.
> That sounds good to me. I have gcc on both my windows and linux system.
> Let's go for 2 different versions, though, as proof-of-concept: How
> about 2.95.2 and at least one 3.x.x version?
Sure, gcc is ok for me too. I only think that this is quite distance goal. I
can suggest something in between.
1. First, we write a single rule called "make" or "generate"
rule make ( targets + : sources * : command-to-run )
This rule would just construct dependency graph (of "virtual targets"), then
convert it into actual target and build it. This way we'll
- have something working -- it's just nice to have
- have chance to play with virtual targets and finilize its design
- such rule is usefull anyway
2. Second, we make the link between projects/abstract targets and virtual
targets. Abstract targets corresponding to project will have 'generate'
method, that should return virtual dependency graph. Ultimately, it should
use generators to find that graph. At this stage we'll just have a stub rule
that, instread of running the right algorithm, will either contain hardcoded
logic, or consult some decision cache.
At this stage we can support
1. Two toolsets (gcc 2.95 / gcc 3.0)
2. Two build variants
3. Two simple features (inlining and threading, for example)
4. One fancy feature ( stlport/stdlib )
3. Everything, including proper dependency graph construction for the two
selected toolsets. Some more features.
How does that sound?
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk