Re: [jamboost] Re: link-compatibility poll: results and feature removal

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-15 02:58:51

Hi Zbynek,
> > 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
> > 0 votes
> > 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.
>
> If it has not been decided yet, I'd go for the 'it has helped me already'
> as I have defined my own feature not to be link-compatible so I guess I am
> actively using the feature.

Ah, but did you ever see the warning. In what case did you see it?

> And as a side note - I've just found out that msvc-6.0 is not
> link-compatible with msvc-7.1 but bjam does not define those two to be
> link-incompatible.

Is it really link-incompatible? Even for 'C' sources?

> And a question - I have bunch of declarations such as
>
> lib cppunit : : <name>cppunit60 <variant>release <toolset-msvc:version>6.0
> <search>d:/software/cppunit-1.8.0/lib ;
>
> I've determined the syntax only by try-and-error and by searching through
> the source files of v2 (Is there some documentation for it? I've searched
> for 'condition'...). I expected
>
> lib cppunit : : <name>cppunit60 <variant>release <toolset>msvc-6.0
> <search>d:/software/cppunit-1.8.0/lib ;
>
> What is wrong with that?

Nothing, except I think it hits a bug in the current code. "msvc-6.0" in 
requirements is not expanded. 

The good news is that I have some fixes lying locally which should fix this. 
I'd commit and announce it later this week.

- Volodya