Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] follow-up to my earlier post
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-13 16:46:39

On Sunday 11 April 2010 21:36:37 Ray Lambert wrote:

> Hi,
> A few weeks ago I posted an inquiry regarding the detection of
> dependency changes during a build, which included a test case that
> demonstrates the issue. Here's my original post:
> <>
> I hate to be a pain but I'm hoping that someone would be able to comment
> on this.
> I suspect the answer is that this is expected behavior and not easy to
> fix but confirmation of that would be helpful. Otherwise, if there's a
> way to somehow make that test case work that would be quite valuable to me.


the caching of timestamp at a random moment during build process is expected.
I don't know what effect such caching has on run-time performance, compared
to calling 'stat' on files as necessary, and this is a code we've inherited
from Perforce Jam. I don't have any high-level reason why this behaviour
should be like that, but probably don't have the time to experiment with
removing it right now either.

Hope this at least clarifies the situation.

Vladimir Prus

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at