Where is find-library defined?

Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:

> On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:38, David Abrahams wrote:
>> I can't find this property defined anywhere in the
BBv2 sources.  I
>> was trying to address
>> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060815
.234820.36bc6303.en.html
>
> We don't have such property at the moment, instead we
have two, called 
> find-library-sa and find-library-st. They are supposed
to request shared and 
> static library respectively, but for the time being,
you can just 
> use 'find-library-sa'.

Okay.  A few questions:

1. In what language is "sa" supposed to evoke
"shared"?

2. Why are there two separate features?  All the linkers I
know just
   support -l<whatever> and don't make a distinction.

3. Don't we want to pick shared or static based on the
value of the
   <link> feature?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

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

On Thursday 24 August 2006 19:17, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:38, David Abrahams
wrote:
> >> I can't find this property defined anywhere
in the BBv2 sources.  I
> >> was trying to address
> >> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060815
.234820.36bc6303.en.html
> >
> > We don't have such property at the moment,
instead we have two, called
> > find-library-sa and find-library-st. They are
supposed to request shared
> > and static library respectively, but for the time
being, you can just use
> > 'find-library-sa'.
>
> Okay.  A few questions:
>
> 1. In what language is "sa" supposed to
evoke "shared"?

Is this a rethorical question?

> 2. Why are there two separate features?  All the
linkers I know just
>    support -l<whatever> and don't make a
distinction.

They were added back then when I though it's possible to
reliably request 
specific flavour with gcc.

> 3. Don't we want to pick shared or static based on the
value of the
>    <link> feature?

The <find-library-*> feature are not for users, which
should use 'lib' target 
anyway. 

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_pru
s.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-
build2
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:

> On Thursday 24 August 2006 19:17, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
>> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:38, David
Abrahams wrote:
>> >> I can't find this property defined
anywhere in the BBv2 sources.  I
>> >> was trying to address
>> >> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060815
.234820.36bc6303.en.html
>> >
>> > We don't have such property at the moment,
instead we have two, called
>> > find-library-sa and find-library-st. They are
supposed to request shared
>> > and static library respectively, but for the
time being, you can just use
>> > 'find-library-sa'.
>>
>> Okay.  A few questions:
>>
>> 1. In what language is "sa" supposed to
evoke "shared"?
>
> Is this a rethorical question?

It was needlessly sarcastic.  I'm Sorry.  "sa"
doesn't evoke "ShAred"
any more than it evokes "StAtic" for me.

>> 2. Why are there two separate features?  All the
linkers I know just
>>    support -l<whatever> and don't make a
distinction.
>
> They were added back then when I though it's possible
to reliably
                                   ^^^^^^
                                   "thought?"
> request specific flavour with gcc.

Is it possible?

>> 3. Don't we want to pick shared or static based on
the value of the
>>    <link> feature?
>
> The <find-library-*> feature are not for users,
which should use 'lib' target 
> anyway. 

Ah.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On Thursday 24 August 2006 19:17, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:38, David Abrahams
wrote:
> >> I can't find this property defined anywhere
in the BBv2 sources.  I
> >> was trying to address
> >> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060815
.234820.36bc6303.en.html
> >
> > We don't have such property at the moment,
instead we have two, called
> > find-library-sa and find-library-st. They are
supposed to request shared
> > and static library respectively, but for the time
being, you can just use
> > 'find-library-sa'.
>
> Okay.  A few questions:
>
> 1. In what language is "sa" supposed to
evoke "shared"?

Ah, the features actually are called find-shared-library and

find-static-library, the SA/ST suffixes are only used as
variable names in 
gcc.jam.

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

On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:21, David Abrahams wrote:

> >> 1. In what language is "sa"
supposed to evoke "shared"?
> >
> > Is this a rethorical question?
>
> It was needlessly sarcastic.  I'm Sorry. 
"sa" doesn't evoke "ShAred"
> any more than it evokes "StAtic" for me.
>
> >> 2. Why are there two separate features?  All
the linkers I know just
> >>    support -l<whatever> and don't make
a distinction.
> >
> > They were added back then when I though it's
possible to reliably
>
>                                    ^^^^^^
>                                   
"thought?"
>
> > request specific flavour with gcc.
>
> Is it possible?

Not in the most reasonable way. It's possible to say
"only static version for 
this library, please", but it's not possible to say
"only shared version for 
this library". 

So basically selecting the type of library is not possible.

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

Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:

> On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:21, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> >> 1. In what language is "sa"
supposed to evoke "shared"?
>> >
>> > Is this a rethorical question?
>>
>> It was needlessly sarcastic.  I'm Sorry. 
"sa" doesn't evoke "ShAred"
>> any more than it evokes "StAtic" for
me.
>>
>> >> 2. Why are there two separate features? 
All the linkers I know just
>> >>    support -l<whatever> and don't
make a distinction.
>> >
>> > They were added back then when I though it's
possible to reliably
>>
>>                                    ^^^^^^
>>                                   
"thought?"
>>
>> > request specific flavour with gcc.
>>
>> Is it possible?
>
> Not in the most reasonable way. It's possible to say
"only static version for 
> this library, please", but it's not possible to
say "only shared version for 
> this library". 
>
> So basically selecting the type of library is not
possible.

If static and shared are both available, doesn't the system
pick
shared unless otherwise instructed?  If that's the case,
selecting the
type of library is possible.  The only thing that's not
possible is
issuing an error when the user specifies a shared library
and only a
static library exists.  Instead the target will silently be
built with
a static library.

??

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On Friday 25 August 2006 16:57, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:21, David Abrahams
wrote:
> >> >> 1. In what language is
"sa" supposed to evoke "shared"?
> >> >
> >> > Is this a rethorical question?
> >>
> >> It was needlessly sarcastic.  I'm Sorry. 
"sa" doesn't evoke "ShAred"
> >> any more than it evokes "StAtic"
for me.
> >>
> >> >> 2. Why are there two separate
features?  All the linkers I know just
> >> >>    support -l<whatever> and
don't make a distinction.
> >> >
> >> > They were added back then when I though
it's possible to reliably
> >>
> >>                                    ^^^^^^
> >>                                   
"thought?"
> >>
> >> > request specific flavour with gcc.
> >>
> >> Is it possible?
> >
> > Not in the most reasonable way. It's possible to
say "only static version
> > for this library, please", but it's not
possible to say "only shared
> > version for this library".
> >
> > So basically selecting the type of library is not
possible.
>
> If static and shared are both available, doesn't the
system pick
> shared unless otherwise instructed?  

Yes.

> If that's the case, selecting the 
> type of library is possible.  The only thing that's
not possible is
> issuing an error when the user specifies a shared
library and only a
> static library exists.  Instead the target will
silently be built with
> a static library.

Yes, that's right. In other words, request for shared
library is "weak" -- 
shared library is preferred, but no error is emitted when
only static is 
present. Request for static library is "strong"
-- if you don't have static 
library, you get error. 

That non-symmetric behaviour does not seem right for me, and
I doubt we can 
provide any consistent interface to user.

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