From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 17:58:21
Deane Yang 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. 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. 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.
This (high-level report of what is built) is something we can add.
> 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
This might work in simple cases, but might not work in complex ones.
Suppose you have a project with line 100 libraries. One of them should
always be static. If you say on command line:
do you still want an error message? Probably, when requesting a specific
target, we can error or warn if the required properties cannot be obtained. Making
build error out in general when some target needs to impose its requirements seems
not very useful.
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