Re: Comments on new gcc-nocygwin-tools.jam?

From: Raoul Gough (raoulgough_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-21 15:57:54

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:u4r82a3f7.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Raoul Gough" <raoulgough_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > I've come up with a new gcc-nocygwin-tools.jam, which contains
only
> > the following code:
> >
> > extends-toolset gcc ;
> > CFLAGS += -mno-cygwin ;
> > C++FLAGS += -mno-cygwin ;
> > LINKFLAGS += -mno-cygwin ;
> >
> > This requires an up-to-date gcc-tools.jam (since 2003/01/17) and
an
> > up-to-date Cygwin gcc installation (support was added around
October
> > 2002, according to my information). I've posted the new
documentation
> > at http://home.clara.net/raoulgough/boost/gcc-nocygwin-tools.html
[snip]
> Your approach doesn't provide for people who want to use an older
> cygwin compiler with STLPort and -mno-cygwin, does it? I forgot how
> our conversation about this was going. Did we decide it wasn't
> important?

Well, I wasn't planning to test support for this, because I no longer
have an STLport installation. David, have you got a suitable
installation of STLport to try this on? It *might* be as simple as
changing extends-toolset "gcc" to "gcc-stlport" in the nocygwin
toolset, in which case a gcc-nocygwin-stlport-tools.jam would be
trivial to write. I've got no idea how many people would benefit from
this, though.

BTW, the C++FLAGS modification seems to be redundant, since the C++
commands use the CFLAGS as well. I assume that using += is
fundamentally a legitimate way to make this change (i.e. it won't
prevent the user supplying their own flags as well)?

Regards,
Raoul Gough.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com