Re: [jamboost] Re: Fw: [boost] Boost.Build problem?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-21 11:04:36

From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> --- In jamboost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <dave_at_b...> wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > I just checked in some changes to your Jamfile which should correct
> > everything.
> > Please try a clean rebuild.
>
> OK, everything compiles, but nothing runs! This is now true no
> matter what TOOLS I use!

Weird. It seemed to work for me.
Are you sure nothing runs?
Just tried it again. The lines labelled "capture-run-output" are the ones
invoking your tests.

> > The unit-test rule is really not very sophisticated: it makes
> the .exe
> > target dependent on a successful run. Of course that means that it
> gets
> > removed if the run fails.
>
> Which is precisely what I want. :(

No you don't. If the run fails, you shouldn't have to re-link the
executable the next time you try to build.

> The run rule will run the
> executable (or it should, AFAIK, though the Jamfile you checked in
> fails to run the executables for any variants using any tool set)

I don't believe it. Please

bjam -sTOOLS=xxx -n -a test

> every single time. This will make it difficult to use the tests in
> this directory for finding and fixing problems since they build 4
> variants per test X 4 toolsets (I'm running msvc, vc7, borland, gcc)
> X 6 tests = 96 runs on every invocation.
>
> > It also means that when I set the JAMSHELL
> > variable on the .exe so that it gets linked through spawn instead
> of a .bat
> > file to work around NT line length problems, it also gets run
> through
> > spawn, which fails (since the command includes environment
> settings).
>
> I don't understand why this is a problem only with the gcc toolset.
> The msvc, vc7 and borland toolsets all work flawlessly with unit-
> test, and they should all be doing the same thing in this case, no?

They don't need the JAMSHELL workaround for the link step since they can
use command files.