Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 05:02:08

David Abrahams wrote:
>> Sure, but with a "generic" toolset that used CXX/CXXFLAGS etc to run
>> an arbitrary compiler, we surely could support that?
> What are you proposing gets done with platform/compiler-independent
> build properties that are in existing Jamfiles? Do they just
> disappear, or do they get translated into one person's idea of a
> standard compiler flag? What does "support" mean in either case?
> What do we tell people when their builds don't work?

Dave, at present if the compiler is unsupported the user gets no help from
us at all, the same issue exists with CMake and/or autotools - but at least
those two give the users a sporting chance of compiling with their "unknown"
compiler if they can figure out what CXXFLAGS to use. I'm suggesting we do
the same thing. Existing supported toolsets remain unchanged. The 99% case
where the user is using a version of gcc but with custom invoke/compiler
options could be detected (autoconf does this already) and forwarded to our
gcc toolset presumably.

I had meant to test this out by now, but you know time etc...


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