Re: [jamboost] Re: boost parallel build, will it get better?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-29 01:30:20

On Thursday 28 April 2005 19:40, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 1. Configure gcc with
> >
> > using gcc : : "distcc g++" ;
>
> This whole business of specifying the command to use and making other
> deductions from there is a fragile hack at best. Some toolsets throw
> out the last path element and compose new paths from there. Writing
> "foo/bar/distcc g++" is going to produce unpredictable behavior in
> these cases. We need a better solution.

Can't we settle on specific format for "compiler command"? Few toolsets care 
about the content, and those that care expect that the last element is the 
name of compiler. Formalizing that in docs should be OK.

In testing.jam, I'm trying another approach -- the tested command is not run 
directly, but via

$(LAUNCHER) $(COMMAND)

so you can do

bjam --v2 testing.launcher=valgrind

This can be generalized to all toolsets, but seems like a lot of work with no 
apparent benefit.

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2