John Maddock wrote:
So.... if there is a change in the library the *test* may not get rebuilt. Robert is that a fair characterisation of the problem?
That seems right to me
I don't see any easy solution to this, unless a DEPENDS clause can be added at the same time as the "run" clause gets added to the tests (inside another rule that is). Rene would that be possible? Any chance you could look at the Jamfile and figure out how at least one of the DEPENDS clauses should look so the rest of us mortals could take it from there?
Actually, Rene did this for me sometime ago but it was absolutely un-understandable to me. It depended on internal, low-level implementation behavior of bjam and I couldn't fathom how and why it worked. As part of this effort I augmented the Jamfile to skip tests which were appropriate in the given environment (e.g. lack of support for spirit, wide chars, etc). So I didn't think I could get all this working and have something I could maintain without constantly bugging other people to help. I hadn't dwelled on this issue because it didn't bother me all that much and I've always assumed that bjam v2 was on the horizon. I also hoped that it would address in an obvious and transparent way the problem of sequencing certain tests - perhaps by permitting one to designate the intermediate file as a test target. Robert Ramey