Boost Testing :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-28 07:56:25
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Sorry, can you clarify? Are paths for "" and <> includes complately separate,
>> wtih <include> specifying "" paths and <sysinclude> specifying <> paths? Or
> That's up to the compiler's capabilities, of course. There's no
> standard for it. IIRC, Metrowerks gives you 100% precise control over
> which paths are searched for each kind of #include. GCC does not (you
> can read about its options yourself).
>>From a BBv1 user's perspective, <sysinclude> is for paths in which you
> want to be sure an #include<...> will be found, and <include> is for
> paths in which you want to be sure an #include"..." will be found.
>>> Some compilers make a distinction between "" and <>. CodeWarrior
>>> is one of them. If Sun does the same I believe this explains all
>>> of the Boost.Python failures with SunPro.
>> In V1's sunpro-tool.jam, both <include> and <sysinclude> are mapped to -I.
> Yes, but we never had Boost.Python (or much of Boost at all) working
> with Sun before. They've improved the compiler a lot and the error
> messages correspond to that kind of problem.
So do we have <sysinclude> capability in v2 yet, and is somebody going
to apply it to the SunPro toolset? I'm getting tired of seeing
everything failing for Python with Sun-5.8 when it's quite possible it
all could work!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com