Re: [Boost-build] [BBv2] [msvc] Various additions to the toolset

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-13 17:35:07

Alexey Pakhunov wrote:
>Reece Dunn wrote:
> > [*5] Alexey Pakhunov has an msplatformsdk.jam toolset to detect and add
> > support for PlatformSDK installations. It is my intention that my
> > additions are to be ultimately merged into this toolset. It would make
> > sense to incorporate his toolset in before these changes.
>
>I guess 'msplatformsdk.jam' that you posted is a good start for
>implementing PSDK support. We will be able to add other PSDK-related
>functonality step-by-step.

Ok, cool :).

> > +feature clr : default managed cppcli : propagated ;
> > +feature pure-clr : no yes : propagated ;
>
>[skipped]
>
> > +        flags msvc.compile CFLAGS <code-analysis>yes : /analyse ;
> > +        flags msvc.compile CFLAGS <addressable-sections>32 : /bigobj ;
>
>Basically, I have only one concern about these features. They all are
>MSVC-specific and they have tendency to change significantly from
>version to version. It seems that the main gain we get using them is
>improved readability and more meaningful names. Maybe it would a good
>idea to move the most specific of them to some kind of an optional
>package? So that a user will be able to choose whether to use them or
>use plain <cxxflags>.

That is why they are in msvc.jam and not common/builtin.jam :). If you look 
at the BBv2 todo list, there is a line there saying "provide a feature for 
each compiler option" or something similar. That part of it was my initial 
attempt at doing this for the Microsoft compiler.

Obviously, common options between compilers (like alignment) can be made 
more generic. The only option that I have seen change on the Microsoft 
compiler command line is the penter/pexit option where VC7+ allow you to 
specify one or the other independantly. Others are either added or removed, 
so it is reasonably easy to detect the compiler version and add (or not add) 
the relevant options.

> >  actions link bind DEF_FILE
> >  {
[...]
> >  }
>
>I missed this part. Don't we need LIBRARIES any more?

I think that might be an error in the difference between what is in the CVS 
version and my version. The main difference here is adding some :W filters 
that were missing. However, this is not critical.

> > # Character Set
>[skipped]
>
>I don't have comment for this file. Looks good. :)

:).

- Reece