Re: Future development

on Tue Oct 16 2007, Larry Evans
<cppljevans-AT-cox-internet.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/07 22:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> [snip]
>
>  > The use case you are talking about, is not that
common.  Most users
>  > have one compiler they work with per system. I
happen to work with
>  > many compilers on one system.  I create a binary
directory for each
>  > of them, running ccmake or CMakeSetup to
configure it for that
>  > compiler, and after that I run make, and cmake is
re-run if it needs
>  > to and the software is built correctly.
>
> But this would require the user to understand the flags
for all the
> compilers that are targeted.  Bjam saves the users this
chore by
> providing a uniform name for all these flags. 

Doug's layer does that for any flags that aren't portable in
practice
(i.e. I don't think he did anything for -D and -I).

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-cons
ulting.com

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

On 10/16/07 16:44, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue Oct 16 2007, Larry Evans
<cppljevans-AT-cox-internet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> But this would require the user to understand the
flags for all the
>> compilers that are targeted.  Bjam saves the users
this chore by
>> providing a uniform name for all these flags. 
> 
> Doug's layer does that for any flags that aren't
portable in practice
> (i.e. I don't think he did anything for -D and -I).
> 
You're right.  I see it in the options call below:

http://svn.b
oost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox-branches/boost-cmake/boo
st_1_34_0/CMakeLists.txt#L51

Thanks.



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