From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 17:33:03
on Fri Nov 02 2007, Deane Yang <deane_yang-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can we try to be more specific?
> If you run bjam without explicit settings, then it should indeed try to
> figure out what the most reasonable thing to do is.
It should do that even if you do give explicit instructions
problem is that the semantics chosen by Volodya do not match common
use cases, or my intuition
> But I would love it if bjam could report what it is choosing, so I
> can see if I am getting something I don't want.
So use -d+2 to see the commands being issued. Many people really
*don't* want to see a bunch of gibberish on the screen that they don't
understand... we have to serve too wide a community.
> It is not uncommon for me to accidentally compile different
> libraries with slightly different settings and run into real
> difficulties when I try to use them together in one project.
> If you run bjam with explicit settings, for example what Robert
> originally tried:
> --toolset=msvc-7.1 threading=single variant=debug,release
> and bjam decides that it is impossible to deliver exactly what is
> requested (in this case, single threading with shared runtime), then is
> it not unreasonable for bjam to simply quit with a message saying "what
> you requested is not possible", along with a suggestion on what might work?
That would be great. It's especially inconsistent today that the
to "using existing semantic to force intentions on user is not right."
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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