From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-25 14:40:39
Richard Hadsell wrote:
> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>> What would you consider an easy way? Manually editing the toolset
>> description would be out of the question I think, even if it's
> "Easy" would be one or two sentences; what to change in what file(s)
> would be o.k. I would expect to find the explanation and instructions
> in tools/build/v1/tru64cxx-tools.html.
> In fact, having looked at this short page, it brings up another
> possibility. Changing the name mangling is like using a different
> compiler, or a different version of the compiler with a change in its
> ABI. How about a different toolset? You are welcome to change
> tru64cxx65 to use -model ansi, and create a new tru64cxx65arm for -model
> arm. This would highlight the problem for new users.
> It would also make it easier for Boost developers to diagnose problems,
> because both options would be recognized, rather than leaving one
> unsupported. Even if tests fail for tru64cxx65arm, the failures would
> be understood.
To speak in terms of boost.build, this could be done as a build feature.
We could add a new build feature called "name-mangling" with the values
"arm" and "ansi". This would give you the opportunity to use bjam
-sBUILD="debug <name-mangling>ansi" or -sBUILD="debug
<name-manling>arm". As a default I would suggest to use ansi then.
What do you think?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk