From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-18 15:22:36
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Monday 18 September 2006 18:06, David Abrahams wrote:
>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > It is certainly sufficient for glibc and libstdc++, but not for
>> > portable building on the "abstract machine." However, unless James
>> > M. has some strong arguments to the contrary, I'm willing to go with
>> > the optimization as we currently have it.
>> Hm, well, good points in private email, James.
>> Why don't we just make the optimization on platforms where it's known
>> to work? Now that you've implemented it, Volodya,
>> will work for those who want to disable threading explicitly.
> Where would you put it? That syntax can be only used to cancel parent's
> requirements, not to cancel usage requirements from any target.
Why not that, too?
And what's a "parent?" do you mean a project higher up in the hierarchy?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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