From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-29 01:37:41
On Thursday 28 September 2006 23:16, Fabien Chêne wrote:
> Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Ilya Sokolov wrote:
> >> Rene Rivera wrote:
> >>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >>>> Can we really handle macro sustitution with just patterns?
> >>> No, but we can handle macro parsing with just patterns. For example:
> >>> HDRSCAN =
> >>> "^[ \t]*#[ \t]*include[ \t]+DEPENDENT_INCLUDE\([ \t]([^)]+).*$" ;
> >>> Would handle the above case. Of course it would be more complicated to
> >>> handle the regular includes plus a bunch of additional macros. Hence
> >>> why we only handle the regular includes.
> >> see http://freetype.sourceforge.net/jam/changes.html#builtin-hdrmacro
> > Interesting, but "Scan filename for #define directives and filter those
> > that do not define a potential filename (e.g., it discards macros with
> > parameters)." And rest of their examples indicates that it won't handle
> > the OPs use case. Or for that matter most of the use cases I'm familiar
> > with in Boost. Arbitrarily parsing algorithmic header dependencies is by
> > definition language dependent. So it's a rather hard/impossible problem
> > to solve generically.
> It is certainly hard to solve, but maybe that it's not impossible to
> emit a warning as an option when a dependency is silently ignored ?
> I mean modifying HDRRULE to not applied NOCARE on a missing dependency
> or something like this.
Ah, then then we'd need a mechanism to disable this warning on Boost, since
users will object to getting 100 warnings ;-)
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