Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 12:07:14

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue May 22 2007, "John Maddock" <> wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> Sure, but with a "generic" toolset that used CXX/CXXFLAGS etc to run
>>>> an arbitrary compiler, we surely could support that?

Yes, we could.

>> I'm suggesting we do the same thing.
> We have different constraints. We don't have low-level build
> descriptions as in Makefiles.

Sure, but having such a toolset would give others a place to start in
developing their own toolset.

>> 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...
> You're not answering my questions. What about the
> platform/compiler-independent build properties when they appear in
> Jamfiles? Are they ignored, or do they get translated somehow, or
> what?

That lost me... Could you give an example?

-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. -
-- rrivera/ - grafik/
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo

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