From: Ilya Sokolov (fal_delivery_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-13 04:13:37
Reece Dunn wrote:
> looking at the patch, here are a few comments:
> (1) You have added an additional pch_base.jam file -- is there a reason
> for this. I.e. could you not move that code into pch.jam?
> (2) In the gcc.jam fix, the import pch_base is commented out.
> (3) Isn't there a way to provide a universal pch-c and pch-cpp rule that
> msvc, dmc and gcc provide generators for? NOTE: I haven't looked at
> this in too much detail.
NO, i think :-( my comments:
- gcc and dmc have very similar pch support
- gcc and dmc have more "right" and preferrable pch support than msvc
- gcc and dmc are too differ from msvc
- borland have totally different implementation, which have no general
with gcc, dmc and msvc
> (4) The msvc PCH support doesn't seem to have some of the updates
> that people have posted to fix some of the issues with the msvc PCH
> support. I believe there is more information on the BBv2 tracker.
`__bjam_pch_symbol' and `cxxflags' from Bojan Resnik?
> (5) Overall it looks good :)
thank you, it will be even better, i hope! :-)
> (6) Now... how to provide cw-pch support...? :)
i have no cw now, but i'll try
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