Re: [jamboost] Re: [Boost-install] Some Recent Thoughts on Boost Installation

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-28 16:40:13

[2002-09-28] Rene Rivera wrote:
>an idea for a solution that would only require small changes to the build
>system, and no changes to the toolset files. The gist of it that the stage
>target would temporarily impose the additional <tag> requirements on the
>targets it depends on. And they in turn generate directly the binaries with
>the correct name. This has the benefit that it doesn't impose additional
>syntax changes, and basically would fix the name problems. The drawback is
>the additional compilation/link of the targets, but I'll try to reduce this
>as much as possible. 
>
>**** Dave, as this impacts Boost.Python and it seems like something that
>woulb be good to get fixed ASAP (for the release)... I'll work on getting
my
>solution working.

OK, I have the solution implemented... mostly. I have one problem that I'd
like to see what others think. In order to minimize the number of
compilations going on I made things so that it only generates (compiles)
specific *.o files once and they get reused when linking additional targets
with different (un)tagged names. But this creates problems with library
targets because those mark the *.o files as TEMPORARY. This makes them get
deleted immidiately after the library is built, and therefore not available
when another library archive, with a different (un)tagged name, is linked.

Question is... how severe of a problem would it be to disable that feature
so that *.o files stay around always?

Disabling it means that I can get this totally done and fixed in a few
minutes.

Keeping it means figuring out how to make those things not disappear until
absolutely possible. May take me a day just to figure out how to do that.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]