From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-17 23:23:45
on Wed Apr 18 2007, "Konstantin Litvinenko" <Konstantin.Litvinenko-AT-malva.ua> wrote:
> Hello, David!
> You wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:55:23 +0100:
> ??>> With Devid proposal I definitely will have problems.
> DA> What problems, specifically? Can you show a specific use case
> DA> (perhaps a scaled-down example) that will have problematic results?
> I just know that you can't miss to ask me that question :)
Of course; it's the appropriate next question.
> Right now I can't give you such example :( But what I can say that I
> so many times hit msvc runtime incompatibility in a past, so I
> strongly disagreed with any default behavion that can lead to ABI or
> runtime incompatibilities.
The onus is on you to show that it can happen for one bjam invocation
that you are actually likely to use. Otherwise, one can only assume
this is (and I don't mean this in an insulting way) nothing more than
FUD. All you need to substantiate your claim is one counterexample.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.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