Re: [Boost-build] single threaded build with msvc-7.1?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-01 12:35:22

Robert Ramey wrote:

> Actually I think you're correct on that.
> 
> So I guess my question would be how can I get a static build?
> I've tried the following:
> 
> --toolset=msvc-7.1 link=static variant=debug,release
> 
> as well as
> 
> --toolset=msvc-7.1 runtime-link=static variant=debug,release
> 
> and neither seems to build any static version.  Also not that I have
> built and tested the static library version with my VC IDE so it
> is possible.
> 
> The larger question is why I even have ask this question.  If I request
> something that is not possible to deliver, I would prefer to get some
> sort of notice to that effect when I make the request.  Currently it
> seems that the system silently changes my request to give me
> "what I really would want if I knew better".  In this particular case
> this results changing to a target which is already built and no
> message of any kind.
> 
> This is really confusing and annoying behavior.

This is by-design, and I don't recall many complains about that.
We can surely add more diagnostic to say what targets are build with
what properties. In fact, I think there's a ticket to that effect.

> Assuming I understand what is going on here (perhaps a rash
> assumption),  I think my beef is with the whole original concept
> of bjam.  Normally I would just ignore this.  But, having seen
> posts suggesting re-writing bjam in python seem to suggest that
> the problems with boost build would be addressed by improving
> its implementation.  (aside, i don't see how python would help that)
> This would be another huge waste of time.  What is really needed
> is to re-think what bjam (or its replacement) should do.  I don't
> see this happening.

I'm actually not sure what kind of reply you expect. The python port
purports to address specific problems, and so far the experience
suggests it will address those specific problems spectacularly.

- Volodya