From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-24 12:56:50
Reece Dunn <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Zbynek Winkler <zw-bjam <at> robotika.cz> writes:
>> Reece Dunn wrote:
>> >Zbynek Winkler <zw-bjam <at> robotika.cz> writes:
>> >>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...
>> >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.
>> My knowledge is also limited . But I think that with this approach
>> the msvc toolset could very much look like some other toolset that does
>> not use rcp (ie. gcc).
> Ok, but note that other compilers (such as Metrowerks CodeWarrior) also support
> response files. One motivation for having it as a target is that it would be
> easy to add response file support to those toolsets that support them. I don't
> know how this would look if response files weren't targets.
I like Zbynek's idea. It would look great; almost as though we had
magically fixed the command-line length issue, except that @(...)
would appear in actions.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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