Re: [jamboost] Re: The right configuration mechanism

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 18:43:15

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 05 August 2005 19:30, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>Those parameters are for cases where toolset does not have a single
>>>"main" binary, or just where it's more convenient for user to specify
>>>path.
>>
>>We still have some disagreement about which should be the default that
>>takes effect with no parameter name, though ;-)
> 
> 
> Yes, as I indicate somewhere below. And I REALLY want somebody else to say if:
> 
> configure msvc : : foo/bar ;
> 
> should be same as
> 
> configure msvc : : command=foo/bar ;
> 
> or 
> 
> configure msvc : : path=foo/bar ;
> 
> or 
> 
> configure msvc : : root=foo/bar ;
> 
> And note that this decision should be the same for all toolsets.

configure msvc : : foo/bar ;

AFAIK now foo/bar has different meaning for different toolsets. So 
requiring foo/bar to be interpreted as path for all toolsets breaks 
backward compatibility.

Users don't write configure directives often, and use these parameters 
even more rarely. If backward compatibility is broken, I think we can 
require an explicit parameter name here, prohibiting just foo/bar.

>>>I'm not sure if ordinary users want to have all installed toolsets
>>>configured. Opinions?
>>
>>How could it hurt to have them configured? It costs nothing AFAICT!
> 
> Except execution time. IIRC, SCons used to search for all tools it knows about 
> and it was a performance problem. OTOH, we'll be searching just for a few 
> compilers, and not for bison/lex/f77 and whatnot.

AFAIK, now if I have 10 using rules in user-config, 10 toolset files are 
parsed and 10 init rules are executed even if I build only with a single 
toolset. Is this true?

Andrey