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.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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