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