Boost logo

Boost-Build :

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.


Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

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