From: Andre Hentz (ahentz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-22 15:46:04
thanks for answering my questions.
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Anyway, I believe that in your case library order is not an issue? If so, I'd
> recomment using linkflags for a while, until more users come complaining.
I'll do that.
>> using gcc : : : : <linker>sun ;
>>And <linker> default to gnu. It may also be possible to automagically
>>figure out which linker is being used by gcc. The whole point is that
>>compiler and linker options are orthogonal.
> This is a good idea. In fact, some other questions, like "is this cygwin or
> mingw, or what version of gcc", can be easily answered with additional
> options to "using".
Good. I'm afraid that this new way of specifying options to 'using'
conflicts a bit with the recently introduced "compiler-options" and
"linker-options". What do you think?
> +# Goes throuh the given-options and find one that matched
> +# <option-name>value. Returns 'value' if found or $(default)
> +# otherwise.
> +rule get-option ( toolset : option-name : default : given-options ? )
> What's the point of 'toolset' parameter? I don't see it being used in the rule
> Also, I think this rule is better defined be 'common.get-toolset-option',
> since it's not necessary gcc-specific. Otherwise, your patch looks fine and
> I'll be happy to apply it once we solve the above question.
I agree with you. That's why the 'toolset' parameter is there, even
though it is not used yet.
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