From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-02 11:45:55
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> As a bit of history, I believe some of the above decisions were due to a
> certain use case:
> CPP <------- WHL
> CPP <------- DLP
> Here, a source file is converted to two targets with one command, and each
> produced file is converted to CPP. Our generators search would notice that
> there are two generators for CPP: the WHL->CPP and DPL->CPP
> generators. Neither is better that the other so both are tried, and produce
> (CPP, DPL) and (CPP, WHL) pairs of targets. To avoid reporting an ambiguity,
> we'd try to convert, DLP to CPP and WHL to CPP, do it successfully, notice
> that produced targets are the same and decide that there's no ambiguity.
> However, this is rather complex logic for a relatively rare case. It can
> be handled by writing another WD->CPP generator that would handle
> disambiguation itself.
This sounds awfully familiar to me ;-)
Does this finally allow the algorithm of
tools/build/v2/generators_prototype.py to be used?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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