Boost logo

Boost-Build :

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


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
Boost.Build V2:

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at