Re: [boost] Release 1_35_0_RC2

From: K. Noel Belcourt (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-27 22:11:17

On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> K. Noel Belcourt wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>
>>> K. Noel Belcourt wrote:
>>>
>>>> (3) The address-model property in intel-darwin.jam isn't properly
>>>> configured.  I've attached a patch to fix tools/build/v2/tools/ 
>>>> intel-
>>>> darwin.jam to make this work with address-model=32,64.
>>>
>>> Why you've left  -mcmodel=small commented out? Does this option
>>> actually exist, and if so, is it good for anything? Or -m32/-m64  
>>> make
>>> this option unnecessary.
>>
>> When I first added the intel-darwin toolset, the -m32/-m64 options
>> were not documented and the only option I could find that dealt with
>> the address model was the -mcmodel option.   I've since discovered
>> that, though undocumented in the older intel compilers, the intel
>> compilers do support -m32/-m64.
>>
>> I think that address-model=32,64 maps most closely to -m32/-m64 so
>> that's why I removed the mcmodel option.
>>
>> -- Noel
>>
>> [ Documentation of the -mcmodel option in intel-10.0 ]
>>
>>         -mcmodel=<mem_model> (i64em)
>>                Tells  the  compiler  to use a specific memory model
>> to generate
>>                code and  store  data.   Default  is  -
>> mcmodel=small.   Possible
>>                <mem_model> values are:
>>
>>                   small  --  Restrict code and data to the first 2GB
>> of address
>>                   space.  Use relative addressing.
>>
>>                   medium -- Restrict code to the first 2GB.  Code
>> access  uses
>>                   IP-relative  addressing,  but  data accesses
>> require absolute
>>                   addressing.
>>
>>                   large -- Places no memory restriction on code  or
>> data.  All
>>                   accesses of code and data must be done with
>> absolute address-
>>                   ing.
>
> I wonder if -m64 without any additional options limits code and data
> to 2GB? That would be not very logical, but I'm not sure.
>
> - Volodya
>
> Hmm. Presumably, -m64

Committed to trunk revision 43900.

-- Noel