From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-11 15:39:56
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
>> I think it's nontrivial to do with a portable (to Win95, e.g.) bjam.
>> We'd need to port os.popen from Python or something like that. While
>> we need something like that in bjam eventually I don't think there's
>> time before the release.
>> Probably your best bet is to run all the tests with -jn to bring
>> things up-to-date quickly, and then run them again without -jn to get
>> the output. Sorry :(
> We probably can redirect output from tools to a file and then dump
> the file content when tool exists. This might remove some of the
> os.popen complexity. However, last time I looked at APR's pipes
> code, most of complexity was for Win95, so I might be wrong. I don't
> even know if Win95 has the 'dup2' function :-(
That's where most of the complexity of popen is too, IIRC, so I guess
we wouldn't win much by using the file trick. Furthermore, it's
pretty easy to find the popen source ;-).
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
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