From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-19 05:48:19
Johan Nilsson wrote:
>this is probably by design, but when using e.g. bjam -d+2 I don't get the
>contents of the response files output to screen. IIRC the -d+2 option means
>dumping the commandline, so I guess it really makes sense.
>However, it makes it hard to find out the exact options passed to the
>compiler. I was trying to use the "using <toolset>" statement to add some
>default parameters to a specific toolset, and couldn't make it work.
>Eventuall I fixed it by adding them as requirements to the default project
>in the Jamfile. But even then I wondered for a long time why _that_ did
>when I couldn't see the options being added when using "bjam -d+2".
>Would it be possible to add the response file contents to the output of
>the -d+2 option (or add another option)? Good idea / bad idea?
This is a regression in behaviour with the modification to move response
file generation natively into bjam via the @(...) syntax :(. I am planning
on looking to correct this behaviour over the next few weeks, so stay tuned.
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