From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-02 01:57:44
Here are the results:
It has helped me already 1 vote (off-list)
Sounds important 1 vote
Not a big deal, can live without it 1 vote
Eeh.. it just produces pointless messages I can't understand
Never heard about this 0 votes
And my own vote goes for "pointless messages". So, the distibution is very
even and it's hard to draw a coclusion. Guess I'll have to decide myself.
The problem with link-compatibility check is that they fail in more complex
scenarious. For example, I want to link single-threaded library into
multi-threaded one -- I really want that. Yet, I get a warning about
link-compatibility and I can stop it. Another example is that I have custom
toolset which is gcc + some extra processing steps. Now, I get numerous
warnings that the new toolset is not link-compatible with gcc.
That fact that non-trivial cases produce warnings that can't be stopped is
really unfortunate, because spirious warnings make it almost impossible to
spot real warnings -- and users will learn to ignore *all* link-compatibility
So, link-compatibility is half-implemented feature. I'm really not sure I'll
have the time to finish it by 2.0 release. And while I'm sorry to remove a
feature, especially one that have helped at least one user, I'm going to
remove it later this week, unless there are good arguments against removal.
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