Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2] fix for response file regeneration

From: Zbynek Winkler (zw-bjam_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-27 13:16:07

Vladimir Prus wrote:

>>>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.
>>> 
>>>
>>I like the idea too, I am just not sure how to implement it. I don't
>>know enough about the BBv2/RSP file internals to remove response files
>>as targets. My initial attempts have failed to retain the current
>>functionality while fixing the regeneration problem :(.
>> 
>>
>Jumping late to this discussion, I don't understand what's being proposed. 
>Yes, we can replace the current RSP logic with something like:
>
> actions compile.c++ 
> {
>	echo -I$(INCLUDES) > $(<).rsp
> cl @$(<).rsp ....
> }
>
>but in that case we'll hit command line length limitation for the "echo" 
>command. What do we gain here?
> 
>
:) I think we should start reading each others emails. IMO what has 
happened here is that each one of us saw the light at various points of 
time. So I guess that we all are proposing

actions compile.c++ 
{
mv @(INCLUDES) $(<).rsp
cl $(<).rsp ....
}

where the @() syntax takes the variable, outputs its contents to a 
temporary file and returns its filename instead.

And just for the record - I would *really* love to see the 
hashed-command-line mechanism to rebuild things. I just see the problem 
of limited command line length and the inclusion of the command to the 
dependency graph as orthogonal.

Zbynek

-- 
http://zw.matfyz.cz/ http://robotika.cz/
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic