Re: [v2] Overuse of response files?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 14:03:09

"Alexey Syomichev" <asyomichev_at_[hidden]> writes:

> --- 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.

What do we need to do in order to resolve this? Have we got an
acceptable plan? This is really a critical problem for me.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com