Re: B2 C++ engine development.
Steven Watanabe via Boost-build <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.build |
|---|---|
| Organization | Providere Consulting, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
AMDG On 10/24/2018 09:58 PM, Rene Rivera via Boost-build wrote: > One of my goals in the future of B2 is to move the engine to something > easier to maintain and improve. As such it's my goal to incrementally > rewrite the engine component of B2 in C++. Yesterday I completed an initial > step in that by having B2 compile as C++ instead of ANSI C. The code > changes are in the "feature/cxx" branch and from outward appearances it's > exactly the same as before except that the build scripts now invoke the C++ > compiler (only lightly tested for the compilers I have available). First > con of this is that the executable is slightly fatter (about 20K on OSX). > But also the first pro, it's about 4% faster. > Any explanation for this? Are the build options exactly the same other than -x c++? The code changes don't look significant, so is it just that the stricter rules of C++ allow the optimizer more freedom? It looks like you're not linking the C++ runtime (which was my first guess about the binary size increase). > The idea is to merge this to develop, and eventually master, and continue > the C++ work based from those (as PRs). > - Is there a reason that you eliminated the two stage bootstrap process? Among other issues, you've made it impossible to create a debug build of b2. - While I support removing bjam, it's an entirely separate change. - Before this goes live, I'd like to see the files renamed to *.cpp. - What language standard are we targeting? filesystem is C++17. In Christ, Steven Watanabe _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build