Re: [jamboost] Re: The right configuration mechanism

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-16 01:13:39

On Saturday 13 August 2005 03:43, Andrey Melnikov wrote:

> > 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. 

No, it means "compiler binary, possibly with path" for all C++ compilers.

> 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 think requiring explicit parameter name is ultimately best approach --
configuration directives indeed are rarely written, so user will consult the
docs anyway.

> >>>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?

Yes. 

- Volodya

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