on Tue Apr 24 2007, "Johan Nilsson"
<r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> This is probably not possible (or perhaps not even
desirable to resolve),
> but I just need to get some comments on this issue:
>
> 1. Suppose that file a.cpp depends on a.hpp and
a_util.hpp (included from
> a.cpp).
> 2. Suppose that running bjam in the project folder
happily produces the exe
> "a".
> 3. Then, I delete a_util.hpp and rerun bjam (without
the -a flag).
> 4. Nothing happens, as the change isn't detected.
>
> This can't be the desired result. Intuitively, I'd
expect an
> attempt for recompilation of a.cpp with a failure due
to the missing
> header.
I'm inclined to agree.
> I realize why the recompilation shouldn't happen in the
general case, as
> this would otherwise cause constant rebuilds whenever
bjam couldn't locate
> an included header file.
Hm. I'm not sure that's a big deal except for system
headers.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-cons
ulting.com
Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
|
