Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r79583 - trunk/tools/build/v2/build
From: jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden]
Date: 2012-07-18 10:08:35
Author: jurko
Date: 2012-07-18 10:08:35 EDT (Wed, 18 Jul 2012)
New Revision: 79583
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79583
Log:
Boost Build no longer needs to add a fake INCLUDES relationship between targets generated by a single Boost Build action (reapplying revision [79571]). This is already done by Boost Jam internally for a single Boost Jam action and in case when the Boost Build action is actually a rule registering multiple actions - this was not causing any desirable behaviour.
Text files modified:
trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual-target.jam | 25 -------------------------
trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual_target.py | 21 ---------------------
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
Modified: trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual-target.jam
==============================================================================
--- trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual-target.jam (original)
+++ trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual-target.jam 2012-07-18 10:08:35 EDT (Wed, 18 Jul 2012)
@@ -761,31 +761,6 @@
DEPENDS $(actual-targets) : $(self.actual-sources)
$(self.dependency-only-sources) ;
- # This used to work around a bug with -j and actions that produce
- # multiple targets, where:
- # - dependency on the first output is found, and the action is
- # started
- # - dependency on the second output is found, and bjam noticed that
- # command is already running
- # - instead of waiting for the command, dependents of the second
- # targets are immediately updated.
- # Current Boost Jam implementation already works around the problem
- # the same way internally. The only difference being that it does
- # so only when an actual Boost Jam action is encountered while we
- # do this even if our Boost Build action actually modeling a rule
- # that will then register one or more Boost Jam actions. In that
- # case our INCLUDES relation added here will affect the build
- # behaviour but it will not be solving any actual problem. The only
- # thing it might seem like it is doing is forcing multiple separate
- # actions to be run all together or none at all but it will not do
- # that completely either - it would miss the case when one of the
- # action targets depends on a target that needs to be updated and
- # another does not.
- if $(actual-targets[2])
- {
- INCLUDES $(actual-targets) : $(actual-targets) ;
- }
-
# Action name can include additional rule arguments, which should
# not be passed to 'set-target-variables'.
toolset.set-target-variables
Modified: trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual_target.py
==============================================================================
--- trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual_target.py (original)
+++ trunk/tools/build/v2/build/virtual_target.py 2012-07-18 10:08:35 EDT (Wed, 18 Jul 2012)
@@ -797,27 +797,6 @@
self.engine_.add_dependency (actual_targets, self.actual_sources_ + self.dependency_only_sources_)
- # This used to work around a bug with -j and actions that produce
- # multiple targets, where:
- # - dependency on the first output is found, and the action is started
- # - dependency on the second output is found, and bjam noticed that
- # command is already running
- # - instead of waiting for the command, dependents of the second
- # targets are immediately updated.
- # Current Boost Jam implementation already works around the problem the
- # same way internally. The only difference being that it does so only
- # when an actual Boost Jam action is encountered while we do this even
- # if our Boost Build action is actually modeling a rule that will then
- # register one or more Boost Jam actions. In that case our INCLUDES
- # relation added here will affect the build behaviour but it will no
- # be solving any actual problem. The only thing it might seem like it
- # is doing is forcing multiple separate actions to be run all together
- # or none at all but it will not do that completely either - it would
- # miss the case when one of the action targets depends on a target that
- # needs to be updated and another does not.
- if len(actual_targets) > 1:
- bjam.call("INCLUDES", actual_targets, actual_targets)
-
# FIXME: check the comment below. Was self.action_name_ [1]
# Action name can include additional rule arguments, which should not
# be passed to 'set-target-variables'.