Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #1266: Implement -l option on Unix.

owner changed

Noel Belcourt — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:34:46 GMT

owner changed from René Rivera to Noel Belcourt

milestone changed

René Rivera — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:41:42 GMT

milestone To Be Determined → Boost.Jam 3.1.15

status changed; resolution set

René Rivera — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:02:48 GMT

status new → closed
resolution → fixed

status, type changed; resolution deleted

René Rivera — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:06:58 GMT

status closed → reopened
type Tasks → Bugs
resolution fixed

Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.

anonymous — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:57:06 GMT

Replying to grafik:

Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.

Hi Rene,

I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.

So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?

-- Noel

Noel Belcourt — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:02:15 GMT

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to grafik:

Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.

Hi Rene,

I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.

I believe builtin_shell calls popen to execute SHELL commands.

So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?

René Rivera — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:08:43 GMT

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to grafik:

Seems the feature on Linux doesn't work for me. The root/tools/jam/test/option_l.jam test if failing for me in Unbuntu.

Hi Rene,

I only added -lx support to execunix.c. I noticed in option_l.jam that you're using the SHELL command and, to the best of my knowledge, SHELL doesn't call execcmd, it goes directly to /bin/sh.

The test uses SHELL to call bjam again so it can pass in the correct options, i.e. it's a recursive execution.

So my question is, should I add support so that -lx works correctly for SHELL as well?

No. You can run the test individually if you want with:

bjam -f option_l.jam -sBJAM_SUBTEST=1 -l2

The build action should fail. For me it's intermittent. Sometimes it works, but most times it doesn't. So I'm not sure how to replicate this.

Noel Belcourt — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:13:17 GMT

Hi Rene,

Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.

[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!

René Rivera — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:17:13 GMT

Replying to noel_belcourt:

Hi Rene,

Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.

[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!

Except for that last error, which is the test for the building process_jam_log bug I fixed today, it looks OK. So you might want to update to make sure it runs all the way through. At the end it will print a completion summary.

Noel Belcourt — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:24:15 GMT

Replying to grafik:

Replying to noel_belcourt:

Hi Rene,

Does this test output look right? If so, I'll commit this patch.

[kbelco@sahp7645 ~]$ cd /var/scratch/boost/tools/jam/test [kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... no file specified!

Except for that last error, which is the test for the building process_jam_log bug I fixed today, it looks OK. So you might want to update to make sure it runs all the way through. At the end it will print a completion summary.

[kbelco@sahp7645 test]$ ./test.sh --- Testing SHELL builtin... --- Testing W32_GETREGNAMES builtin... --- Testing -d2 option... --- Testing -l option... --- Testing -n option... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of actions... --- Testing -jN parallel execution of multi-file actions... --- Testing var expansion... --- Testing var on target semantics... --- Testing var expansion... --- Complete: PASSED(30) *FAILED(0)*

Okay, looks better. I'll get this committed soon.

status changed; resolution set

Noel Belcourt — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:20:47 GMT

status reopened → closed
resolution → fixed