Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Zbynek Winkler (zwin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 07:14:06

Vladimir Prus wrote:

> If I understand correctly, the approach you've arrived at is to make feature
> non-optional, and the drawback is that now all targets are built in four
> variants? In other words, it's good to have features specific to a main
> target?
> For example:
> feature mode : 1 2 3 4
> : link-incompatible ignored-unless-explicitly-made-relevant ;
> lib test : test.cpp : <explicitly-relevant-feature>mode
> : : <explicit-relevant-feature>mode ;
> exe app : app.cpp test ;
> With this setup, 'mode' feature will only affect target which have explicitly
> specified that they care about 'mode'. What do you think? (Note that this
> just an idea, syntax details might be different).

So when I build 'app' - will it have mode set? (Note: for me to be of use it
should and it should be the default value of the feature 'mode') When I issue
'bjam mode=1 app' I'd like 'app' to be built with mode set to 1 and linked
with 'test/<mode>1'. In addition when I do 'bjam mode=1' it should build all
targets but only 'test' and 'app' should have mode set. Is this what you are
suggesting? If so, then it solves my problem ;-)


Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at