stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject build.bat with multiple compilers (was Re: Solution generartion script for Intel 9.0 compiler)
Date Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:45:54 GMT
Anton Pevtsov wrote:
[...]
> 1) Shall we have build.bat for each configuration (VC71, ICC90) or shall
> we have only one build.bat for all configuration (in this case first
> parameter of the build.bat will be the configuration)? Currently I
> change nothing here and there is the unique build.bat file for each
> configuration.

I remember discussing this before but not the conclusion (or even
if we reached one). Let me see if I can find it... ah, here it is:

Martin Sebor wrote:
 > Anton Pevtsov wrote:
[...]
 >> 2. The generate.wsf script after
 >> the solution generation makes the build.bat file in the BUILDDIR. This
 >> batch will contain information about BUILDDIR, TOPDIR and CONFIG as
 >> internal variables values. And it will accept only BUILDTYPE parameters.
 >> The build.bat will be CONFIG-specific and to avoid collisions it may
 >> renamed to buildvc71.bat for example.
 >
 >
 > I assume you're concerned about different compilers sharing the same
 > BUILDDIR. Making the build.bat compiler-specific would certainly work,
 > but I think it would be more in line with the general philosophy that
 > is beginning to emerge out of this discussion to have just one build
 > script even in this case and have its command line argument control
 > which build type(s) with which compiler(s) to do.
 >
 > The script argument could consist of the name of the compiler and the
 > build type (such as msvc-11s or icc-15d), or, if we wanted to get fancy,
 > it might be more flexible and allow things like just icc for all known
 > build types with Intel C++ or just 12d for builds with all compilers
 > (or even, say the number 8 for all of icc-8d, icc-8s, msvc-8d, and
 > msvc-8s). But that might be taking it too far ;-)

If that's easy to implement I would expect the argument to name both
the compiler and the build type (e.g., icc-11s or msvc-12d). Otherwise,
two arguments would be fine (I would make the first argument the build
type for consistency with single-compiler builds, and the second one
the compiler name; we could default to msvc when no name is given).

Martin

Mime
View raw message