From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-12 08:45:11
David Abrahams wrote:
> > Good question. As soon as I started replying it, I've realized that
> > semantics I've given above is not right/needed. Instead
> > make targets : sources : rule : requirements ;
> > should mean almost the same as usual rules:
> > subvariants of 'targets' can that satisfy requirements can be build
> > 'sources' by invoking the specified rule (and passing it targets,
> sources and
> > full property set). So the difference from usual rules is that build
> > are not generated by explicitly given.
> So this appears to be the equivalent of the current
> "declare-local-target" rule. Correct?
Roughly so, except that declare-local-target is much more sophisticated and
that "make" rule can be invoked several times for the same target.
> > and if subproject requrement, when combined with inherited ones,
> > leave any change of building.
> Do you mean "change" or "chance"?
> > BTW, can you clarify the difference between
> > "optional" and "symmentic" features? I can't understand it from docs.
> In the current system, <runtime-link> is a symmetric feature. A value is
> always chosen for every build, but its default value (dynamic) is not
> automatically incorporated into build variants. The result is that the
> corresponding subvariant directory always shows up in the subvariant
> path, so that subvariant paths always include runtime-link-dynamic or
> runtime-link-static. Compare this with, say, <optimization>, which gets
> a value in each build variant. In a normal debug build, you don't see
> .../optimization-off/... in the subvariant path.
Understood. It was the phrase "not automatically included in all variants"
which has confused me. Maybe the comment should be clarified.
> An optional feature need not have a value ....
> > Let's go back to what I wanted. I'd like an ability to link together
> > targets which are not, strictly speaking, compatible, for example to use
> >some library with space optimization even in release builds, which
> > optimize for speed.
> Ah. There are two levels of compatibility. The first level is
> link-compatibility. On all toolsets I know of, all <optimization>
> settings are link-compatible with one-another, and there should be a way
> to link them together. In fact, if we take Ullrich Koethe's suggestions
> tion_And_Installation it will be important to be able to do so,
> especially when the resources (e.g. source files) for constructing other
> build variants are not available.
> However, I see no need to override
> true link-compatibility restrictions. In other words, you shouldn't be
> able to link together object files generated with a different alignment
> requirements, EH model, etc...
> The second level is something much vaguer: "request compatibility" or
> something. Normally, if I'm making a debug build of my application with
> optimization on I want the build properties to propagate to all the
> libraries I can build which are linked into my app. However, that's not
> always true, and the requested properties may only propagate to a subset
> of my app's dependencies. The question is, if we allow it to be
> customized, where will this "request propagation" be specified? Shall we
> allow the user to put it in the build request somehow, for maximum
> flexibility, or would it be better to just have a way to write it in the
> Jamfile? My sense is that it's just too complicated an idea for the
> command-line, and it should go in the Jamfile.
I agree. Saying something like: "grab space-optimized version of library foo
when linking app bar" is too complex to say in command line.
> > The syntax
> > exe main : main.cpp *lib/lib1/<optimization>space ;
> > therefore should mean something like: when deciding which variant to
> > link in, pretend that build request contains <optimization>space, no
> > matter what is in the build requrest for the "main" target.
> Okay, I like that. Now you need to specify what happens if
> <optimization>speed happens to be in the requirements for lib/lib1. My
> feeling is that, since <optimization> settings are link-compatible, it
> should link with <optimization>speed and issue a suitable warning
> depending on the verbosity setting. If <optimziation> were not in fact
> link-compatible, should there be a hard failure or should it build
I'm in favour of hard failure.
> BTW, why are you not using '@' to denote targets? Shouldn't that be
Yes, it should. Thinko on my part.
> > Is it syntactical or semantical distinction? I mean that "make" rule
> > return dependency graph, but while future "exe, lib, &c" rule would
> > construct it,
> > "make" can create it from it's arguments very simply. Under refined
> > semantics, it will have to do something: filter build request with
> > requirements, for example. Only the graph with have depth 2 and this
> > is the simplification I like.
> I think your idea is growing on me. I'm not sure what it means to
> "return a dependency graph", though. Are you suggesting that it returns
> a list of virtual target names? Actual target names? Something else?
A list of virtual target names.
> > > in other words, I'm not sure
> > > just which problems "make" is supposed to solve.
> > First purpose is temporary -- to serve as a test tool.
> > Second is been unsure that our generators algorithm with cover 100% of
> > cases.
> > I hope I wil cope with 99%, but "make" is a tool to explicitly specify
> > dependecy graph for the remaining 1%.
> OK, I like your plan.
Great. I indend to think about details a little bit more over weekend and
write some tests for "make". I hope it will make the set of tasks more
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