Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Preprocessed output
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-31 05:59:16
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 01:40:56 Vicente BOTET wrote:
> > Message du 30/03/11 08:53
> > De : "Vladimir Prus"
> > A : steven_at_[hidden], "Boost.Build developer's and user's
> > list" Copie Ã :
> > Objet : Re: [Boost-build] Preprocessed output
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 00:08:01 Steven Watanabe wrote:
> > > >> c) What should the extension be. I know msvc uses .i
> > > >> by default for preprocessor output. Unless they're
> > > >> already used by something else, we could make it
> > > >> .i and .ipp.
> > > >
> > > > I think that is fine.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, .ipp is used in a few places in
> > > Boost with a different meaning, so it's probably
> > > not a good choice. Would it be confusing to use
> > > .i for everything? Do you know of any other
> > > common convention?
> > .i and .ii is what gcc seem to use.
> I guess that for these kind of targets we don't need to add them to the
> Jamfile and we could request them directly from the command line as
> bjam file.ii
> Is this correct or do will need an explicit dependency
> prepro file.ii : file.cpp
I think Steven's plan suggests the latter. It's surely possible
to modify existing generators so that it creates a target with
.ii name without making it built by default, but it's probably
-- 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