From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-16 00:12:19
Xavier Pegenaute wrote:
> just for curiosity is there any concrete reason to don't do it? I
> thought that it is so common when you are developing portable code.
One of the reasons not to do it is that it doesn't help when
cross-compiling portable code. Since such checks usually only test the
host system they give misleading information for your real target
system. Regardless, I've mentioned, and asked in the form of Google
Summer of Code proposals, for such features myself before. My problem is
that we need people who are willing to build such infrastructure into BB.
> May be is there any other way to control these kind of checks?
There are various ways of accomplishing similar results. Boost library
code uses the approach of using preprocessor configuration. One solution
I use is to create things link config.h files, as might be produced by
autoconf, based directly on the target os of BB. For example the expat
BB extension I wrote
I use that same pattern in many of the other extensions I have in that
project. Hence I'm looking for ways of generalizing the behavior.
Another use case I've seen people post about in this list is in using
<cxxfalgs>`some-config --cxxflags` to use the configure generated
scripts from other libraries directly in the compile commands.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
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