From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 13:10:08
Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> [2003-10-21] David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Kirill Lapshin" <klapshin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> --- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
>>>> What do users think about it?
>>>> Two possible problems are:
>>>> 1. A bit longer paths. Not a real problem, I think.
>>>> 2. If one cpp is used by two exe, it will be recompiled twice. I
>>> think this
>>>> will be quite rare.
>>> Fine with me -- paths already long enough to render them pretty much
>>> unusable :)
>>> So I have to rely on unit-test, symlink and stage anyway.
>>Interesting viewpoint. Maybe if we can't make paths truly simple we
>>shouldn't worry about simplifying them even a little.
>>IMO the only way to make them truly simple is to reduce paths like
>>gcc/debug/optimization-on to mangled names like "gdo".
> Or hash the directory name and only have something like:
Sure, that could do the job, making the chance of a collision
infinitesimally small. Taking a cue from tinyurl.com we should
probably use a base-36 representation of the hash.
-- 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