Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-07 09:35:39

[2003-07-07] Vladimir Prus wrote:

>> >>this problem. It now filed at
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Rene, care to take a look?
>> >
>> >How frustrating. Yes, I thought I fixed this. I'll look sometime today.
>> >just got BCC55 reinstalled after the HD chaos)
>> And even more frustrating is that it's now fixed... and not-fixed. The
>> has different behaviour on Windows and Linux :-( As in the jamgram.h/c
>> files are not removed if yacc/bison fail on Windows, but they are in
>> The removal is done by Jam so this is a bug we may have to address. The
>> discrepancy shouldn't cause problems for now as it's unlikely that
>> yacc/bison will fail on *nix systems.
>Alas, this does not really work for me. When I get a fresh checkout and
>the steps from the issue, I see
>....removing jamgram.c

Arrgg, and it continues to be anoying :-(

>and everything is messed up. Looking at source, I see:
> /* If the command was interrupted or failed and the target */
> /* is not "precious", remove the targets */
> if( status != EXEC_CMD_OK && !( cmd->rule->actions->flags &

Yea, that sounds bogus. Was there a precious flag before and it somehow got

>and that really makes no sense to me. What's relation between RULE_TOGETHER
>and "precious"? Maybe, we should just introduce "PRECIOUS" buildin, which
>will prevent deletion of target if action fails?

I think that's a good idea. It's likely to be usefull in other similar
distribution circumstances.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) - grafik (at)
-- 102708583 (at) icq


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