Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2][msvc] assembler support - asmflags note (low priority)

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-20 08:22:40

Reece Dunn wrote:
> Andrey Melnikov wrote:

>>Also, can we just use <flags>?
> 
> 
> Then, if you have:
> 
> exe foo : ... : <flags>-machine:x86 ;
> 
> you add that to everything, where it should be <linkflags> as it is 
> linker specific.

A conflict will be even now if you use multiple toolsets. So you have to 
specify additional conditions.

<toolset>msvc/<tool>c/<flags>-machine:x86 isn't much worse than 
<toolset>msvc/<cflags>-machine:x86

> Is it possible so that when registering types we automatically generate 
> a <type-flags> feature, so:
> 
> type C : c : cflags ; # defines feature cflags : : free ;
> type CPP : cpp cxx cc : cxxflags ; # defines feature cxxflags : : free ;
> 
> where the last argument gives the prefix.
> 
Firstly, the flags feature isn't type-specific, but tool-specific. So 
it's logically incorrect to associate it with types.

Secondly, there are many other type-specific features, and I don't have 
an idea why flags is so specific that it deserves a separate decicated 
implementation.

feature cflags : : free ;

isn't that bad. IMO it's better than just ": cxxflags ;" because and 
the code is explicit and self-describing.

Andrey