Re: Metrowerks 9 toolset changes

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-07 11:12:43

> I've been beta testing Metrowerks 9 using the cwpro8 toolset. Seems to work 
> OK with no changes to the toolset. But...
>
> There are a few issues:
>
> * The version being part of the toolset name is confusing when invoking 
> bjam, and also means that build and test sub-directories created by bjam 
> are misleadingly named "cwpro8".

I'm using the enclosed toolset

 --=-=-= Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=cwpro9-tools.jam

{
local CWPRO8_ROOT = $(CWPRO9_ROOT) ;
extends-toolset cwpro8 ;

# remove -prefix UseDLLPrefix.h
local cf ;
local p = $(CFLAGS[1]) ;
for local f in $(CFLAGS[2-]) dummy
{
if $(p) = -prefix && $(f) = UseDLLPrefix.h
{
p = ; f = ;
}
cf += $(p) ;
p = $(f) ;
}
CFLAGS = $(cf) ;
}

# The following #// line will be used by the regression test table generation
# program as the column heading for HTML tables. Must not include version number.
#//Metro-
werks
Code-
Warrior

 --=-=-= 

> * Libraries have "cw8" in their mangled name rather than "cw9" or just 
> plain "cw". This is about to become more important because we are going to 
> add auto-link support for Metrowerks as soon as the toolset issues are 
> settled.
>
> * An option, "-prefix UseDLLPrefix.h", is redundant with 9.x, and should be 
> removed as confusing. 

It's harmless, and I'm not sure the confusion of removing it is worse
than the confusion of not having it on the command line.

> (Thanks to Ed Swartz of Metrowerks for pointing that out.)

Fixed in the enclosed, though

> Does that means we need a new "cwpro9" toolset, or should we create a 
> single "cw" toolset and deprecate "cwpro8"? 

Until BBv2, we always need a new toolset for new versions *if* we want
to test with several versions. IIUC cwpro8 is still the latest
released version on Windows. I'm ambivalent about which one should
be the default, but I do think having the toolset called "metrowerks"
supporting only pro7 is a bit wrong.

> (The "pro" part of the name 
> always seemed redundant to me. In discussions, people always abbreviate the 
> CodeWarrior compiler name as "cw", not "cwpro".)

Whatever ;-)

> Whatever the answer is, I'd appreciate it if one of the jamboost experts 
> could make the necessary changes.

I'm not doing anything unilateral. If you want to check in the
enclosed as whatever9-tools.jam, be my guest.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
 --=-=-=--