From: vladimir_prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-02 10:05:33
> > Consider
> > R ----- 1.F ------ 1.Y ------ 1.X1
> > | \ \------- 1.X2
> > | \---------- 1.Z ----- 1.X3
> > | \------ 1.X4
> > \ ----- 2.F ------ 2.Y ------ 2.X1
> > \ \------- 2.X2
> > \---------- 2.Z ----- 2.X3
> > \------ 2.X4
> > This graph is no problem for make, but is impossible with our
> > approach. First, generator for R will break all sources apart.
> > Second, we never
> > considered target names. In this example, 1.X1 should be combined
> > with 1.X2 but not with 2.X2
> > We can try to support this kind of graph -- this has some
> > implementation problem but maybe they can be overcome. However,
> > need it?
> I'm not convinced that it's neccessary to be able to automatically
> target grouping from the source target names involved. Are there any
> examples of this sort of thing in the real world?
I haven't seen any. So, if anybody here knows real world example,
please speak out!
> > What do you think? Do we need to support this make-like graphs? Or
> > should I clarify my question?
> The graph is certainly possible in our current scheme, just not
> IOW, there would have to be an explicit main target for 1.F, 2.F,
> 2.Y, and 2.Z.
> I don't think that's a serious limitation.
We agree so far. Hope we won't run into problem later.
I'd have to implement some grouping of targets to support my
use case in m2-transformations.txt, but that grouping will be
explicit and won't depend on
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