Re: [Boost-build] question(s) about bjam code IV

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] question(s) about bjam code IV
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-28 00:46:12

On 27.10.2017 16:17, Steven Watanabe via Boost-build wrote:
>
>> Hmm, so whenever a "global" variable may be overridden by a target-specific 
>> variable, I can see that some global (or module-specific) dictionary needs to be 
>> updated from the current target's variables. What I don't see is why the 
>> target->settings themselves need to change.
>>
>   It isn't necessary per se.  It's an implementation
> artifact.  pushsettings and popsettings are both
> implemented essentially as
>   swap(target specific variables, module variables)
> In short, after calling pushsettings, target->settings
> temporarily holds the old values that are restored
> by popsettings.  This works as long as the code in
> between pushsettings and popsettings never tries to
> access the target specific variables (which is the
> case in the existing code, but apparently not for you).
> The correct solution is to add copysettings and then push/pop
> the copy instead of using target->settings directly.
I'm not sure I use any non-target-specific variables in my own usage of
bjam. So unless the whole `make1cmd` business is querying the variables
to build the commands from the module settings, I assume I could get rid
of all the settings swapping and only access `target->settings`
directly. Right ?

Thanks,

Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...