Re: [Boost-build] cflags documentation issue?

From: Gevorg Voskanyan (v_gevorg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-22 04:46:38

First of all, thanks David for bringing up this issue here!

[snip]

> > What would be the correct description of these features?
> 
>    I believe these two pages describe two slightly different things that 
> seem like something that should behave the same but appear to be out of 
> sync.
> 
>    The first one (http://tinyurl.com/63rjal) describes the parameters 
> passed to 'using' rule calls which get handled locally by toolset 
> initialization. This is implemented the the tools/common.jam module in 
> the common.handle-options() rule which converts those values to the 
> OPTIONS parameter passed to specific actions (assuming those actions are 
> called .compile.c & .compile.c++).
> 
>    On the other hand, the second page (http://tinyurl.com/6zeyhu) speaks 
> of Boost Build features bearing the same name which get processed by 
> each toolset separately. E.g. tools/gcc.jam toolset converts them to the 
> USER_OPTIONS parameter passed to specific options (gcc.compile for 
> and gcc.compile.c++ for ).
> 
>    Perhaps these two should be in sync, and I believe this would be 
> quite easy to change but I think someone else is needed to approve of 
> this as the change seems like something that may cause quite large 
> compatibility problems. If you can get is pushed - cool... :-)

Jurko,
thanks for clarification. Yes, it would be ideal if these two were in sync in the first place, but I understand the consequences of changing this *now*.
That said, I for one don't insist on bringing them in sync.
Rather I'll try to remember this subtle difference in semantics when specifying toolset-specific options, in order to correctly choose between compileflags and cflags depending on where the options are specified - user-config.jam vs. command-line and/or locally in a jamfile. Hope this is not asking too much from my brain memory :-)

At least I feel better now that the confusion is cleared away.

>    Hope this helps.

Definitely

>    Best regards,
>      Jurko Gospodnetić

Thanks,
Gevorg