From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 19:13:24
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 05 August 2005 01:20, Andrey Melnikov wrote:
>> > Why? Because we haven't had a use case for
>> > such flexibility -- specifying linker on the command like is funky.
>>>>Personally I don't think that <linker> for msvc is useful. Is it
>>>>actually possible to use Intel linker with MSVC just by specifying it in
>>>>site-config or user-config? What are the use-cases for this in other
>>If you don't see any use cases, can we just hardcode the linker
>>parameter then and get rid of this ugly code?
> I think Dave had his reason for making linker name customizable. Dave?
For other toolsets the linker might make sense. But for MSVC the only
alternate linker I know is xilink from Intel compiler.
Is it possible now to compile some files with MSVC and some with Intel
and then link them using Intel linker?
>>My question was: Should mspsdk be a real feature?
> Since I don't know what's mpsdk, you have to answer this yourself, using the
> "simultanious build with different values" test.
It passes the test. Actually sometimes mspsdk is even a fully functional
Just like <arch>, <mspsdk> is a universal feature and can be used with
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