[C++-sig] Python, Boost.Python, and SCons

Chad Austin caustin at gmail.com
Sat Jul 3 10:14:18 CEST 2004


(If this thread is getting off-topic, maybe we should move it to the
SCons lists.)

Hi Ralf,

In my experience, the dependency scan for boost.python hasn't been
that bad...  but maybe that's because my primary machine is a dual
xeon 2.8.  I remember your patch, but I don't remember why we
disagreed with it...  I could see them buying into your patch if you
were persistent enough and had a strong enough argument.  I don't
remember how you implemented it, but maybe a good way would be to use
an environment variable [SCAN_CPP_IGNORE_PATH?] that the CScanner uses
to filter the directories it scans it.

Chad

p.s.  Have you tried always using the --implicit-cache option?  That
usually works wonders, and very rarely results in an incorrect build.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT), Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve
<rwgk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Chad Austin <caustin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > SCons is awesome!
> 
> SCons is awesome indeed! I am using it ever since the repository support was
> added (0.08 or so). However, there is one thing I have to hack around: the
> implicit dependency scan of the boost tree is horribly slow on some older
> platforms (minutes before the first compilation command is issued) and even on
> new platforms I find the waits very annoying when I am in a debug/recompile
> cycle. 18 months ago or so I submitted a patch that allowed me to turn the
> implicit dependency scan on/off for selected subdirectories. However, the SCons
> people didn't even buy into the idea, let alone the patch. Right now I resort
> to the trick where I add include paths to CPPFLAGS instead of CPPPATH. It is
> not pretty at all because I have remember to do this in each and every
> Environment, and it is difficult to pinpoint where I might have forgotten to do
> so. Since you are a SCons developer that is also using Boost: don't you have
> the same problem? Is there a chance that SCons will at some point provide a
> rational scheme for turning the implicit dependency scan on/off in selected
> subdirectories that are known to be static? Is there an alternative that I
> missed?
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> C++-sig mailing list
> C++-sig at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig
> 


-- 
Chad Austin
http://aegisknight.org/




More information about the Cplusplus-sig mailing list