From: Jürgen Hunold (hunold+lists.Boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-02 07:56:23
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Volodya !
On Monday 02 February 2004 10:12, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Shall I run some profiling ?
> If that's not too much inconvenience, then I'd appreciate seeing the
Running bjam -d+10 ?
> > 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.
Well, I'd like to have a mechanism to disable this completely. I fear
that my legacy projects will suffer from an increase in startup time no
matter how fast the algorithm will be. And this is simply due to the
fact that library organisation went out amok some years ago. And
unfortunately I'm not in the position to get that changed in the near
I've got severe acceptance problems from my co-workers because the
startup-time is way too high for them. One proposal was to disable
scanning system includes (#include <>) in order to get a much smaller
> > 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
Oh, it seems it should take a deeper look at the docs ;-)
* Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! Institut für Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau
* voice: ++49 511 762-2529 ! und -betrieb, Universität Hannover
* fax : ++49 511 762-3001 ! Appelstrasse 9a, D-30167 Hannover
* hunold_at_[hidden] ! www.ive.uni-hannover.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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