From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-18 11:59:00
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I'm about to check in some changes which pass all of our regression
>> tests, but which I fear may destabilize the build system for some of
>> The change is that the "composing-generator" distinction is now
> Looking at your changes, I see that you've done something
I wanted to make the smallest possible change that could work.
> You've allowed composing generators to be used
> everywhere. The distinction is still there: composing generators and
> ordinary generators differ in semantics.
So the difference you're talking about is just how many sources the
generator can consume, right? I wonder if we shouldn't use patterns
and have a single kind of generator instead? IOW, we'd specify the
RSP generator as
OBJ * STATIC_LIB * -> RSP
While most 'C' compilers would be:
C -> OBJ
>> It was interfering with response files under NT and didn't
>> seem to be doing anything useful.
> Agh... you created EXE from RSP and RSP generator won't be used
> because it's composing.
> I believe the change you've made is reasonable.
That's a relief!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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