From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-17 15:12:01
I've found the following line in the output of bjam.
for lack of
It seems that the "<p..> is confusing process_jam_log. So
a) bjam is outputing something it shouldn't
b) process_jam_log isn't handling something it should
c) I'm just missing something.
I could tweak process_jam_log to work around this but if
its a bjam fix, I'd rather the experts look at it.
Thanks for you help.
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what problems will arise from that
> It seems there are separate defines:
> so everything should be OK.
Well, I made a couple of adjustments and this seems OK now.
Of course I did have some declarations in there for a reason
but maybe some combination was never tests - I'll keep and
eye on it.
> No, it only means that 'exe' projects under Jamfile.v2 won't use
> autolinking. That define does not affect libraries.
That's what I meant to say. Just to be sure, this means
that user programs built with bjam won't use auto-linking
by default. I would expect this is OK since most users
which would benefit from autolinking are probably building
their executables with an IDE anyway.
> - Volodya
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
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