BBv2 msvc.jam: An attempt to reduce code duplication in actions

Andrei Melnikov wrote:
> Patch version 2.
> - No cl.exe command line duplication any more,
including compile.pch rule
> - Whitespace cleanup: tab fix from my previous patch,
some trailing
> space removal

Very nice! I have applied this to my local BBv2 branch and
built a project
without any problems. This has my vote .

- Reece
____________________________________________________________
_____
Try Live.com: where your online world comes together - with
news, sports, weather, and much more.
http://www.live.com/ge
tstarted
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On 24/06/06, Reece Dunn <msclrhdhotmail.com> wrote:
> Andrei Melnikov wrote:
> > Patch version 2.
> > - No cl.exe command line duplication any more,
including compile.pch rule
> > - Whitespace cleanup: tab fix from my previous
patch, some trailing
> > space removal
>
> Very nice! I have applied this to my local BBv2 branch
and built a project
> without any problems. This has my vote .

Unfortunately, it doesn't work as expected. Full builds are
ok, but
incremental builds fail. I think it's because it's
incorrect to invoke
build rules with actions from other rules this way. Can
someone help?

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

On 27/06/06, Andrei Melnikov <andy.melnikovgmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/06/06, Reece Dunn <msclrhdhotmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrei Melnikov wrote:
> > > Patch version 2.
> > > - No cl.exe command line duplication any
more, including compile.pch rule
> > > - Whitespace cleanup: tab fix from my
previous patch, some trailing
> > > space removal
> >
> > Very nice! I have applied this to my local BBv2
branch and built a project
> > without any problems. This has my vote .
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work as expected. Full
builds are ok, but
> incremental builds fail. I think it's because it's
incorrect to invoke
> build rules with actions from other rules this way. Can
someone help?
>
LOL... I just used -n switch for incremental build in VS...
No wonder
that it didn't work.

Could someone test my refactorings under Cygwin and review
the code
for possible flaws? I'm really afraid of checking changes
in just
because "they just work", without multiplatform
testing and a peer
code review.

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