Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Comeau (comeau_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-17 08:35:19

In article <ubrwxkeeb.fsf_at_[hidden]>,
David Abrahams <jamboost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden] writes:
>> I've presented this at a higher level, and hence as a build
>> question, because, it seems
>> the libs are being built in different ways across tools
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't understand the meaning of this. Libraries are built in
>different ways. Some libraries have build instructions which use
>tool-specific adjustments to build options, to work around bugs or
>enable required features.

When you say "build instruction", what is that?
Is boost/tools/build/como-win32-tools.jam a build instruction?

I attempted to touch on this I think in my first post.
I realize different products will for instance use
different linkers, or, say, allow shared libraries or not, etc.
And those seem neutral ways to build the same library
in different ways. But when the same criteria _on the code_
is different, then I think it's a different thing.

>> which seems then to transcend any particular libraries concerns.
>> I'm posting this to know if my saying this is totally unfounded.
>Can't say until I understand what you're asking

It seems to me that bugs and such are one thing, and that
sometimes the bugs interfere, but it also seems to me that
when completely different dialects of C++ are being used,
it seems like odd comparisons. As mentioned in another
post, for instance, running VC++ with /Za and then again
without /Za... well, not only can the results be completely
different but the underlying premise of the builds are as well.

Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==>
World Class Compilers:  Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at