John Maddock wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
It would be nice to establish a clear policy that allows us, given a compiler option -do-random-nonsense to determine:
- whether there should be Boost.Build feature for that option
How about: "new features are randomly added based upon demand".
This is probably ok.
- what values of that options should be built by default
IMO always the same as the compiler uses by default.
Well, but -- should we only build with the default value in the compiler? Or with all possible values?
- should the value of that option be included in the library name
Yes, if it's commonly used and changes/breaks the compilers ABI.
So, we need a definition of "commonly"? There should be a line beyond which the user is supposed to explicitly build extra variant, and deal with the naming himself.
But of course given than N options give us 2^N library variants, we'll have to be careful how many of these options we add/support.
Yes, this is the primary concern. - Volodya