Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-05 08:56:14

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > {CPP,CPP} <- ECPP (only first CPP must be further converted into NM_ASM)
>> How is that not an automatic ambiguity?
> I don't know what's "automatic ambiguity". I don't see anything wrong about
> processing the first file in a different way from the second.

They're the same type. How can you expect the generator process to
deduce that the first one should be converted to NM_ASM and the
second one should not, instead of doing it the other way? You've
given no information to indicate which file to choose for that transformation.

>> You might get around that by generating a derived type of CPP,
>> e.g. NM_CPP, which can be converted into NM_ASM.
> Say, I write
> nm_exe foo : foo.cpp ;
> Here's "foo.cpp" is of type CPP, and it should be converted into NM_ASM.
> Writing
> nm_exe foo : foo.nm_cpp
> is not that nice.

It seems to me that your case is one which cannot be automatically
solved without ambiguity.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at