Subject: Re: [Boost-build] dynamically editing the bjam dependency graph
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-02 13:00:29
On 09/02/2017 08:04 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> (I haven't thought about how to deal with such cycles yet, but am wary
> to use a separate mechanism. I'd rather try hard to keep things simple,
> if possible.)
On second thought, I'm not even sure I would encounter cycles: As I
mentioned earlier, I (intend to) use the compiler itself (`gcc -M ...`)
to report header dependencies. Note that this generates a flat list of
headers (with absolute paths), without any indication of dependencies
among those headers.
Headers that are to be treated as proper artefacts by the build system
(i.e. for which there are actions to update them) need to be handled
explicitly, just like any other build artefact. And for those there
shouldn't be any cycles.
Perhaps it would be best to use a concrete use-case to work with to see
how this could play out...
Â Â Â Â Â Â Stefan
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
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