From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-08 09:02:37
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
> > 2. In boost::fsm all state classes contain virtual member functions but
> > have non-virtual destructors. GCC rightly issues a warning on this,
> > the gcc toolset and all its extensions (AFAICT, there are currently 5)?
> > Someday someone will add another extension and the warnings that are
> > disabled for the already existing extensions will appear for the new
> > extension until my Jamfile is adapted.
> I'm not sure what your question is here?? O'wait by "extensions" you
> mean the difference gcc toolsets?
Right. The toolsets are gcc, gcc-stlport, gcc-nocygwin, mingw and mingw-stlport.
> that's the case you can use the
> somewhat undocumented feature of property rules...
> rule toolset::no-warn-non-virtual-dtor ( toolset variant :
> subvariant-path properties * )
> switch $(toolset)
> case gcc* :
> $(subvariant-path) $(properties)
> <cxxflags>-Wno-non-virtual-dtor ;
> case * :
> $(subvariant-path) $(properties) ;
This assumes that all gcc toolsets start with gcc. We also have the mingw
toolsets. Of course I could add those with a separate "case mingw*:" but if
someone introduces a new gcc toolset extension that has a completely different
name then this doesn't work anymore, right? Then again, gcc toolsets aren't
added on a monthly basis, so I guess this isn't really that important.
> Sounding like a broken record... Yes in BBv2, but not in BBv1
Ok, this leaves me with one last question: Will 1.33 be built with V2?
It certainly did. Thanks!
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
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