Re: [Boost-build] gcc: options specific to C compilation

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] gcc: options specific to C compilation
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-10 03:05:18

Ilya Sokolov wrote:

> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On Monday 10 November 2008 10:06:24 Ilya Sokolov wrote:
>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 09 November 2008 01:39:40 Jeroen van der Wulp wrote:
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to add -std=c99 as a requirement to the project with C as
>>>>> well as C++ code. So I added it using the <cflag> feature, which breaks
>>>>> compilation of C++ code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have noticed that in the manual it says that cflags contains options
>>>>> for both C and C++ compilation.  I have also noticed that a feature
>>>>> called <compileflags> is being used in the msvc.jam. It seems to be a
>>>>> set of options that is common to C and C++ compilation. This feature is
>>>>> currently not usable for the gcc toolset which to me is rather confusing.
>>>> It does not really work for msvc, either.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody will object if I make 'cflags' apply for C compilations only, on
>>>> all toolsets, and make 'compileflags' apply for both C and C++ compilations?
>>> I think we should drop *flags parameters, add compileflags feature and
>>> use toolset.add-requirements rule.
>> 
>> You mean, that options to 'using rule' should be routed via toolset.add-requirements?
>> Right now, many options are not features -- like 'archiver', or 'linker-type'. Do you
>> suggest to convert them to features, too?
> 
> No, we should differentiate between the options of the toolset and the
> options that will be applied to targets being built with that toolset.

So, in:

        using gcc : : : <linker-type>sun <compileflags>xxx ;

compileflags will go via toolset requirements, whereas linker-type will be handled
directly?

- Volodya

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build