From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-15 05:27:54
On Thursday 12 July 2007 19:38:36 Rene Rivera wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> but here's the more general plea/explanation on
> >> why fixing this is important... It's not really a problem for Cygwin
> >> only. In general the gcc toolset, and most others, don't do what the
> >> msvc and other Windows toolsets of doing precommand setup. It's a
> >> general pattern that it seems to me should be handled generically like
> >> the CONFIG_COMMAND var. Regardless... I'm fine with doing this myself ;-)
> > Why do you think it's necessary? With msvc, there's that vcvars script,
> > whereas with gcc, it was not required so far.
> Simple math... Currently this handling is implemented in N toolsets, and
> not implemented in M toolsets. Now, and in the future, we need to
> implement it for N+X toolsets. Having some common support for this
> functionality not only saves part of the X work but reduces the work
> needed to maintain N toolsets. Hence we save C*(N+X) amount of work over
> both development, testing, and maintenance.
It seems to be that N is actually 1, and X for far seems to be 1, if we assume we
need to change gcc to use any pre-command. So generic framework might be
actually more work.
But basically, if you care about cygwin, you pretty much get to decide what
helper routines you need.
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