From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-11 10:33:48
Brad Howes <howes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 8:06 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> I know you understand this Rene, but to be completely clear for
> everyone else: I mean that we should have one top-level "gcc" toolset
> that everyone uses even if they're targeting Darwin.
> Hey Dave -- I worked at Dragon Systems while you and Tim Peters were
> there --
> sorry if this has already been answered, but why the insistence that
> gcc.jam and darwin.jam merge? I thought the whole point of the tool
> inheritance framework was to allow for this kind of derivation?
Users of GCC shouldn't have to wonder whether they should use the gcc
toolset (obvious; it's the name of the compiler like all the other
toolsets) or the darwin toolset (non-obvious: it's the name of the OS,
sorta, and it's not unlikely that we'll have toolsets for OSes someday
-- think cross-compilation). It's just confusing. I don't care how
the code is organized; this is a user-interface issue.
> I'm happily using BBv2 on a PowerBook and I would hate to
> encounter a ton of churn to back get to where I am today. Seems kind
> of unusual to me to include a ton of Darwin/MacOS X-specific rules and
> actions to support bundles and frameworks in gcc.jam.
Take a good look at gcc.jam. It's already chock full of
platform-specific rules. Anyway, it wouldn't be hard to allow darwin
to be used as a toolset name transparently as a backward-compatibility
-- 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