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

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-28 16:19:59

From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>

> 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.

I wouldn't go overboard with this. The build-to-develop and
build-to-install audiences are mostly distinct, and where they overlap,
waiting for another build is not too terrible... for now.

> 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,

No, TEMPORARY just affects the way dependencies are calculated. It's
RmTemps that makes them get deleted.

> 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?

I don't think it's very severe; there's a variable which does it.

> 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.

I'd consider just telling people who overlap both audiences to set
KEEPOBJS, which will suppress RmTemps.

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com