Re: [Boost-testing] error: "8.3/runtime" is not a known subfeature value of <toolset>cw

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-15 15:41:31

Vladimir Prus writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> > Vladimir Prus writes:
> >> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> >> > Don't we want this working before we release?
> >> 
> >> Why would we? "toolset=" autoconfiguration is a way to help first time
> >> users.
> > 
> > It's also the way the bjam invocation is documented in the new Getting
> > Started guide and Boost.Build v2 documentation
> > (http://boost.org/boost-build2/doc/html/bbv2/advanced/invocation.html).
> 
> The getting started guide does not say you can pass several
> toolsets,

The error has nothing to do with multiple toolsets; I've commented out
the offending cw-8.3 toolset spec, and now our regressions are happily
humming away. 

In any case, I elaborated on this in my reply to David.

> and Boost.Build docs say that a toolset must be configured before
> being requested.

Probably (although I didn't see it). I never claimed otherwise, I said
"It's also the way the bjam invocation is documented in ...
Boost.Build v2 documentation", and it is:

   This section describes how invoke Boost.Build from the command line

   [...]

   To request a certain value for some property, add property=value to
   the command line:

       bjam toolset=gcc variant=debug optimization=space

> 
> >> I think saying that if one wants to use more that one toolset he has
> >> to configure them is acceptable.
> > 
> > Judging from the diagnostics and the fact that other runners don't
> > have this problem, I don't think that multiple toolsets have anything
> > to do with it. It's the "cw-8.3/runtime-link=static" piece that is
> > causing grief here.
> 
> I think it's the combination of --toolset and auto-configuration
> code.  The problem you posted before was that nothing's build. Now,
> you get error while parsing the command line.

I noticed ;). Again, I clarified this point in my reply to David.

[...]

> >> Because instead of having a single file that's says that versions
> >> you have configured and how,
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't see why I should be required to write a file that says
> > 
> >     using msvc : 7.1 ;
> > 
> > instead of simply being able to request the same in the command line.
> 
> I would even suggest that user-config.jam use full paths to
> compilers.

If our auto-configuration code is _that_ unreliable, then we shoudn't
advertise this functionality. But seriously, surely we can do better.
If Python's distutils can do it, so can we.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering