Re: [jamboost] Re: Upcoming changes in default bjam output

From: Alo Sarv (alo.sarv_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-10 11:48:22

On 10/10/05, Michael Stevens <mail_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 Oct 2005 08:23, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 October 2005 00:43, David Abrahams wrote:
> > > >>I think we may need some small extension to allow the suppression of
> > > >>the executed commands for cases like the "run" rule that's used in
> > > >>testing: it's so ugly as to be unhelpful.
> > > >>
> > > >>If I don't hear loud objections in the next 24 hours, I'm going to
> > > >>implement this change and check it in.
> > > >
> > > > I am sad to hear that. Not outputting the commands executed is one of
> > > > the things I most appreciate about BB.

I have to agree with that. If errors happen, bjam automatically prints
the command-line, which IMHO is the best behaviour - keep output clean
when there's no errors, and when errors happen, print the offending
command-line as well. I also don't see how the current "actions"
output is complicated (I'm assuming we'r talking about bbv2 here):

gcc.compile.c++ bin\src\gcc\debug\threading-multi\log.o

It says all that's needed - compiler, action, language, configuration,
object being compiled - perfect. I have no need to see the full ugly
command-line every time I compile. Furthermore, clean output also puts
higher priority to warnings, which otherwise simply get hidden between
the long command-lines.

Alo Sarv