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