From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-18 09:00:57
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> Good. Probably, when all of Boost is buildable (I haven't tried
> Python, and there might be some problems with threads), you can try
> to implement this? That's a good change to dig into as yet unknown
> parts of code.
> >>>Yeah, it is... though I think we ought to consider supporting such
> >>>things as:
> >>> bjam --compile=foo/bar/baz.cpp
> >>> bjam --preprocess=foo/bar.cpp
> >>>and probably also:
> >>> bjam --recompile=foo/bar/baz.cpp # no dependency checking!
> >>Well, the last thing is just "-a" switch to bjam. About "--compile"...
> >>is it in any way different from
> >> bjam foo/bar/baz.o
> > It's a push -vs- pull thing. When I "just want to compile this file" I
> > don't want to have to think about what kind of target it generates or
> > how to name it.
> I get you. However, the only semantic I can think of is:
> execute only the actions which are compiles, and which uses
What about just, "execute all actions which have foo/bar/baz.cpp as an
> You know, this is similar to my old idea to run only selected actions,
> which are not universaly available. For example, using a modification of
> your proposed syntax:
> bjam --action=bison.bison
> Would construct dependency graph for "." and run only "bison.bison"
> actions. Back you what you've proposed, we can allow
> bjam --action=*.compile
> to run all compile action and some variation of this syntax for compile
> only one source file:
> bjam --action=*.compile%foo/bar/baz.cpp
Hmm, it's kind of ugly. Let's make this a low priority until we think
of a nice way to express it, OK?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Building C/C++ Extensions for Python: Dec 9-11, Austin, TX http://www.enthought.com/training/building_extensions.html
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