From: Jurko Gospodnetiæ (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-18 13:56:17
> An idea: Would there be anything wrong with stating dependencies
> specified using the <use> feature directly to Boost Jam? Would that then
> fix the behavior on Windows and at the same time remove the need for the
> explicit library sorting step used by the GCC toolset?
Ok, this popped back into my head and I gave it some more thought.
This would not be a good solution as it couples two unrelated things:
1. Boost Jam's dependencies indicating that one target needs to be
built before the other one starts its build process.
2. Order in which libraries get linked together (once they are all
built, since they are all dependencies for the target created by the
So I guess the solution implemented for GCC using the <use> feature
seems the correct one and IMHO should be used generally by all linking
generators. Each should still implement it separately though as each
might have a different way of specifying those libraries, e.g. some
might require them to be specified in the reverse order from GCC. Shared
sorting code seems to have been already extracted in the tools/order.jam
My original question still stands... is this an OK thing to implement
in Boost Build? Is there a better solution - either already implemented
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