Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-14 15:31:30
On Monday 14 June 2010 22:38:12 Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2010 1:00 AM, Spencer E. Olson wrote:
> >> I have absolutely nothing against C++, I certainly prefer it over c, but
> >> we've
> >> found many difficulties compiling all of boost already. If bjam went with
> >> a c++
> >> underneath, I would prefer it to be portable, allowing me to continue
> >> using
> >> Boost.Build even where Boost is not yet tractable.
> > Hm, I also worry about the portability issue as you do. And it would be the
> > one item that makes me rethink depending on Boost for bjam. But I do have
> > one question for you.. Doesn't having something like GCC on each of those
> > platforms mitigate the problem? I know it's not an ideal solution, but it's
> > not unprecedented to require a "better" compiler for tools. Or to put it
> > another way; Is GCC available in all the platforms you might have problems
> > with?
> I am all for rewriting bjam with boost libraries as dependencies.
> The newer GCCs are *very* good at conformance.
> Also, even if bjam4 can't work everywhere, and a bjam implemented in C
> has also to be around, this is still *a lot* better. Because at least
> we can have boost.build with very good performance on 90% of the
I don't think that using boost libraries in bjam will have any effect on performance,
given that we'll be using Python as languange for business logic in future.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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