"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Now that I read your description of history, it seems to be just an artifact of your unwillingness to use Rene's fix.
Lets make simple, just fix bjam so that one can use the DEPENDS clause to condition the invocation of one test upon the successful completion of another test.
bjam doesn't need to be fixed to allow that.
Thats the way I would expect the DEPENDS clause to work from looking at the bjam documentation.
That _is_ how the DEPENDS rule works. However, you can't expect it to work the way *you* invoked it. The names you used are not the names of the actual Jam targets involved.
Rene spent quite some effort on figuring out how to let you specify ordering and make it work. I think you should make sure his efforts don't go to waste. If you need to be more comfortable with the code, get him to explain it until you understand it.
Its hard
...but not impossible...
to include code that one can't understand in a project one is responsable for. The real source the problem is that bjam is hard to use and has lots quirky behavior. I haven't dwelled upon it because I know that it is being worked on.
Then learn to understand it or remove the tests that depend on that behavior. The current situation is simply unacceptable.
While we're on the issue of Jamfiles, I did change my local Jamfile for comeau compilers to use static libraries and it seemed to get much better results. I could check in my change but I seem to recall that a change was going to be made in the como ... vc-7_1 toolset to address this. So far test results show this hasn't happened. So I'm confused as to whether to check in this change.
I don't know the status of any planned como toolset changes. You should ask on the jamboost list. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com