Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Call of interest
From: Konstantin Litvinenko (to.darkangel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-27 02:56:36
Vladimir Prus Ð¿Ð¸ÑÐµÑ:
>> clean and precise error messages from build system.
> Can you show example error messages from your system?
:) I expect that question. By design I want to do the follow: 1) Parse
to tokens 2) Build AST 3) build backend representation. Because I
concentrate on backend, frontend print error messages as bad as BBv2 do
:), may be even worser :(. But this is due I have no time to do all
these stages in a right way. Having clean frontend/backend separation
and custom parser make it possible to lift up error message quality to
what every program language have. I decide to go away from using Python,
Lua or any other script languages only for one simple reason - I want
to features, targets and others primary build concepts and players to be
first class citizen in a language. Having this and clean and easy AST
allow building precise IDE support for Hammer scripts. Make it possible
to build tools for precise rewriting, formating, analyzing Hammer's
scripts and whole build tree. Custom language with own parser will give
much more possibilities to enhance/extend such a tool. Yes, thats
require more manpower and knowledge to be done, but in a long time
perspective IMO its right investment.
>> * Hammer can generate Visual Studio 2005 projects and solution files.
>> There is no limits in IDE projects generation, just no one write nothing
>> else :);
> So, is your system generating build description for other underlying tools?
>>From the description above I gather that "no", but then I am not sure
> what generated IDE projects contain/do.
Hammer is build system by self. Project generation is only one of it
ability. I develop mostly in Visual Studio with help of syntax
highlighting, code navigation and others features that makes my life
much easy. Being build system by self Hammer respect other users and
give them ability to work in they usual environment. In that sens it
like CMake - write one script and generate others if you need. But
Hammer doesn't support autotool/autoconf headers/libraries discovering.
For now I have strong opinion that software can be written in a way that
doesn't require all these checks. Build system should help write such a
software, but this help should be as little as possible. May be I am
wrong, but now that my position.
> Do you have a custom build engine (the thing that decides what has to
> be rebuilt, and what not).
Is that engine capable of rescanning
> header dependencies in a file that is itself generated during build process?
This one I don't have :( But thinking about a problem.
> Does it have unit tests?
Yes, it does. The quality is not perfect, but it does. The main problem
that I don't like huge number of cpp files - one test in one file. I
packet all tests in one set. But IDE doesn't have a way to run easy only
one Boost.Test when I need to debug. I think I should do something with
You can browse test at
Can it be easily modified to support signatures
> (both for file content and for the updating commands)?
This one I can't understand :(
May be asking about that.... Hammer output for dll/so/lib is tagged by
MD5 calculated from target sources and build request. This is unique
identify different builds and prevent from dll hell. Yes, looking on
can scary anybody, but this the only way I have found to resolve all
build problems forever. By looking on that file name you can't tell what
compiler was used, is it linked with shared runtime or static and so on.
But you don't need to known that in %99.99 of cases. But when you
really need it one can write a tool that print all information about the
way a library was build. This is subject to discuss, but I spend a lot
of time in thinking about that problem and I think that is the solution.
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