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.
using gcc : : : <linker-type>sun <compileflags>xxx ;
compileflags will go via toolset requirements, whereas linker-type will be handled
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
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