Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-20 15:24:05

On Monday 07 August 2006 10:00, Rene Rivera wrote:

> > Hmm, I start to think what you did could be done simpler. You can modify
> > gcc linking generators, so that for runtime-link=static it returns
> > nothing. Then, you can modify typed-targets so that when generators
> > return nothing, warning is emitted instead of error (probably, just for
> > Boost). Then, you won't need new generators method, as well as some of
> > the changes you made.
> >
> > This approach would simplify the code; though I still don't agree with
> > target skipping approach.
> Hm, I wonder if an easier solution is to have the gcc toolset add a
> "<build>no" to the properties. Is that possible? It would seem to solve
> all the problems of skipping targets and dependents.

I'm not sure what you mean. We can add


to top-level requirements, so that if such combination won't be ever built.

- Volodya

Vladimir Prus
Boost.Build V2:

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at