C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Package Dependency Manager (PDM) and Build System Guidelines

From: Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 22:05:47 -0500
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Titus Winters <titus_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Here's a concrete example of why the preprocessor matters deeply in this
> discussion.
> If we build from source, we have to handle the (all too common) situation
> where a given library has an arbitrary set of build inputs (-D flags,
> compiler flags, etc). If those aren't compatible, that'll be a problem.
> If we force them to all be the same, then we have to worry about providing
> a mechanism to specify which flags (from an unbounded list) are required /
> compatible with a given library. That's hard to extract from source.
> If we instead allow each library to be built from different compiler
> invocations, we risk ODR. Keep in mind that even something as simple as an
> assert() in a header is an ODR violation if we don't enforce consistent
> build flags: building that header with one definition of NDEBUG in one TU
> results in a different definition than one built without NDEBUG in another
> TU.

Indeed ODR is a concern. But even with that concern we somehow manage
today. Again, how much do we want to prevent such concerns?

In all honesty, the preprocessor and consistent build invocation is
> possibly the hard part. If we come to agreement on those points, relying
> on existing package management solutions probably suffices.

Yes, indeed. And that's the first thing I want to tackle. I want to tackle
it by standardizing compiler invocations. This is not some fanciful idea
either.. It's what we've been doing with Boost Build for more than a decade
by abstracting the compiler flags to portable features. Some other build
systems, like cmake, do similar abstractions to some varied degrees.

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Received on 2018-03-17 04:05:49