From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-18 15:33:37
On Monday 18 September 2006 23:22, David Abrahams wrote:
> 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,
> >> -<threading>multi
> >> 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?
Because I did not see obvious use case for that. And <threading>multi is
non-free so it can be passed via usage requirements anyway at the moment.
> And what's a "parent?" do you mean a project higher up in the hierarchy?
For a target -- project where the target is defined. For a project -- project
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