Re: [Boost-build] Call of interest

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Call of interest
From: Konstantin Litvinenko (to.darkangel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 12:38:29

Vladimir Prus пишет:
>>     If Jam has that feature then its implementable. So why stick with 
>> Jam only because Jam has it? Yes, it is require implement/test that 
>> functionality. But I don't scare by that - I will do it and will have 
>> that feature along with those Jam don't have.
> 
> I don't claim that this feature is extra hard to implement and you won't
> ever implement it. All I am saying is that until that feature is available,
> we won't be able to consider using your build engine for boost.build.

Ah, I understand. Well, I will try to implement this feature as soon as 
possible :).

  While
> that's not your primary purpose, that would be handy.
> 
>>> I mean, if a.o was produced from a.cpp, will a.o be rebuild if:
>>>
>>> 1. a.cpp time changes, while content does not.
>> Yes
> 
> How hard would it be to make Hammer compute MD5 signature of a.cpp
> content and use *that* to decide if update is necessary.

Hm. Don't know right now. Checker is separate part and has 150 LOC, so I 
think it is not to hard to implement another one. But I am curious why 
to use MD5 for that? I saw SCons do that, but don't get it why. Why use 
all this cryptographic and not relay on timestamp? Is there a *real* 
benefit?