Re: [v2] Overuse of response files?

From: Alexey Syomichev (asyomichev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 13:36:38

--- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 06:02, Alexey Syomichev wrote:
> 
> > > So, on error the content of response file is printed, but the
file is
> > > removed. On success, the file is silently removed. The content
of file is
> > > also included in "bjam -n" output.
> > >
> > > One downside is that with this patch it's not possible to
redirect output
> > > of bjam to a bat file, and then run that file. I'm also not sure
that
> > > Boost regression testing tools will be happy with the extra
output.
> > >
> > > The patch is not so big, so I can integrate it quickly.
Comments?
> >
> > Another downside is that with this patch it would be impossible to
> > copy/paste and re-run a failing command line, which I personally
use
> > quite often.
> 
> I suppose this can be handled by not removing response files on
errors. But 
> you also can copy-paste both the command and content of response
file, which 
> is printed on the error.
> 
> What do you think?

If .rsp file is printed in the log and then deleted, in order to
re-run one would have to restore the deleted .rsp file by copying its
contents from the log. This works, although it's not uniform with
unix-based process (just copy and re-run). 
On the other hand, if .rsp file is never deleted, then the command
line from the log is reusable at any time. 
I would vote for printing the contents of .rsp, so that all flags are
visible in the log, and keeping it intact, so that the compile/link
command are reusable at any time later, similar to unix builds.

--Alexey