Re: [Boost-build] Preprocessed output

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Preprocessed output
From: Nogradi, Chris (Chris.Nogradi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-31 09:03:11

Interestingly enough, I have an immediate need for this feature as well.  For the time being I will hack it into the MSVC toolset but look forward to the real thing. I thought I saw some previous need for this in the mailing list archives relating to IDL compilers.

It would be nice if this new feature supported generating preprocessor output for existing jam files without requiring any changes.  This is a feature often needed during development to help debug the environment.  It is currently done by copying and adding the /P or equivalent option to the command issues by bjam during the compile (using -d2). But this is clunky.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-build-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-build-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:59 AM
To: Vicente BOTET; Boost.Build developer's and user's list
Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Preprocessed output

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 à :
> > 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.
>
> +1
>
>
> 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
more complicated.


--
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com

Boost.Build: http://boost.org/boost-build2

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build


This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Thank you for your cooperation.