From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-23 01:17:37
Andre Hentz wrote:
> >> 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?
I don't see anything very wrong with it. But, sure, having one parameter
'options' where you can specify everything is nicer, something like:
using gcc : : <linker>sun <cxxflags>foo <linkflags>bar ;
I'd be interested in Michael's opinion on the topic.
> > +# 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 body.
> > 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.
I think we don't want to have unused parameters "just in case".
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