Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-24 04:29:16

Zbynek Winkler <zw-bjam <at>> writes:
> Reece Dunn wrote:
> >If you, Volodya or anyone else has a better solution feel free to add it
> >to the discussion.
> >
> The response files are "just a workaround" for a limited command line
> length, right?

Yes. They allow you to pass defines and include directories that would go beyond
the command line limit.

> If this is true, would it be worth to consider just creating the
> response file in the action? I mean that the response file would not be
> a target at all, the build engine would never see it... The information
> to create the rsp is already there and it would have the right semantic
> (recreate the rsp each time the target is rebuild) and we could easily
> keep the rsps around...

The problem is that the response file generation logic is currently tied into the
rule+action architecture, so removing them as a target would (currently) break
this. I am unsure how tightly they are bound to this arcitecture, so don't know
the impact of removing them as a target.

Another thing is that the response file is placed in the debug/gcc, etc. build
directory, but this can be worked around by using $(>[1]).rsp.

Your idea seems sound in theory, I would need some time to work on the
implementation as I only have a limited knowledge of how response files work.

- Reece


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at