Re: [jamboost] New response files broke -o option

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-15 10:36:06

On Tuesday 15 November 2005 18:32, Rene Rivera wrote:

> > Any ideas what can be done here? I have two ideas:
> >
> > 1. With -o option, make up "echo" invocations that would have the same
> > effect. The problem is that IIUC, "echo" command always write a trailing
> > newline, so the output won't be exactly the same.
> >
> > 2. Add some bjam switch to generate response files only if command line
> > length will be too long otherwise. This might be hard given the current:
> >
> > @"@(........)"
> >
> > syntax. How do we get rid of the first "@" is bjam decides not to use
> > response file?
>
> I think those just complicate things too much. The point of the @() was
> to simplify the response file handling (and to reduce mem use). How
> about just *not* deleting the response files when the "-o" option is used?

It means that output of "-o" is not longer standalone. Before, I could:

- Take my source
- Run "bjam -obuild.bat"
- Send somebody sources together with build.bat

Now, I'll also have to add ".rsp" files to the sources tree.

- Volodya