Re: [jamboost] [v2] bad dependency analysis

From: ANDREW MARLOW, BLOOMBERG/ LONDON OF (amarlow1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-27 08:12:45

it's a shame we can't take the guts of
the X11 utility, makedepend and put it into jam. 
I know that jam takes several shortcuts when it calculates
the dependencies. makedepend does a full job
by expanding all the macros to figure out
what gets included.

----- Original Message -----
From: Vladimir Prus <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
At: 6/27 14:06

On Sunday 19 June 2005 02:21, David Abrahams wrote:
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> David Abrahams wrote:
> >>> I have a case where changing a header file doesn't cause a rebuild of
> >>> the .cpp that includes it. Is there something in particular I should
> >>> try to help debug it?
> >>
> >> BBv1 or BBv2?
> >
> > Sorry, v2. And I'm not sure I can repro this one anymore
>
> Well, it just happened to me again in a different context. It's an
> easy repro, too. Just go to libs/mpl/test and build the "set" target
> with your favorite compiler. Then
>
> touch boost/boost/mpl/set/aux_/set0.hpp
>
> Then build the set target again.

I suspect it's the same problem with includes via macro. Looking at
preprocessor output, it looks like line 36 of boost/mpl/set.hpp, that reads:

# include BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(boost/mpl/set/AUX778076_SET_HEADER)

affect this case.

- Volodya

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