
BoostBuild : 
From: vladimir_prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 20020902 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,
do we
> > need it?
>
> I'm not convinced that it's neccessary to be able to automatically
deduce
> 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 makelike graphs? Or
> > should I clarify my question?
>
> The graph is certainly possible in our current scheme, just not
implcitly.
> IOW, there would have to be an explicit main target for 1.F, 2.F,
1.Y, 1.Z,
> 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 m2transformations.txt, but that grouping will be
explicit and won't depend on
names.
 Volodya
BoostBuild 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