From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-02 04:12:23
Jürgen Hunold wrote:
> > > Question: How can I disable library ordering ?
> > To to gcc.jam and
> > 1. Comment out the entire body of set-library-order (it's defined at
> > the end). 2. Make 'order-libraries' return 'libraries' argument.
> > If that does not help, I'd like to take a look at the profile.
> Ok, everything works as fast as before.
It's a relief. I feared it might have being a change made before.
> Shall I run some profiling ?
If that's not too much inconvenience, then I'd appreciate seeing the profile.
> Is is possible to make library-ordering a customizable feature ?
> Like <hardcode-dll-paths> maybe ?
Another approach is to rewrite the ordering code in C. Currently, we run graph
algorithm in jam code, and jam was never meant for that.
> I think that my "real life", "legacy rich" projects are immune to any
> improvement of library ordering. For some relative new projects (with
> better design ;-) ) library ordering could be an improvement.
> Please note that for dynamic linking on Linux, no library ordering is
> needed (at least, I never needed to sort libraries using handwritten
> Makefiles and qmake generated ones).
Yes, dynamic linker does not care for order.
> You only need to order libraries
> when doing static linking. But for this to work, we need the
> "order-sensitive" properties for system libraries, because these must
> be ordered, too.
Well, you can declare "searched libraries" and set order between them.
> And you have to order these libraries manually,
> because they are usually not generated by bjam ;-)
> Right now, I've applied the "-W,"-(" " patch in order to circumnavigate
> these problems
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