From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-26 12:32:00
K. Noel Belcourt wrote:
> Hi Volodya,
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> K. Noel Belcourt wrote:
>>> (3) The address-model property in intel-darwin.jam isn't properly
>>> configured. I've attached a patch to fix tools/build/v2/tools/intel-
>>> darwin.jam to make this work with address-model=32,64.
>> Why you've left -mcmodel=small commented out? Does this option
>> actually exist, and if so, is it good for anything? Or -m32/-m64 make
>> this option unnecessary.
> When I first added the intel-darwin toolset, the -m32/-m64 options
> were not documented and the only option I could find that dealt with
> the address model was the -mcmodel option. I've since discovered
> that, though undocumented in the older intel compilers, the intel
> compilers do support -m32/-m64.
> I think that address-model=32,64 maps most closely to -m32/-m64 so
> that's why I removed the mcmodel option.
> -- Noel
> [ Documentation of the -mcmodel option in intel-10.0 ]
> -mcmodel=<mem_model> (i64em)
> Tells the compiler to use a specific memory model
> to generate
> code and store data. Default is -
> mcmodel=small. Possible
> <mem_model> values are:
> small -- Restrict code and data to the first 2GB
> of address
> space. Use relative addressing.
> medium -- Restrict code to the first 2GB. Code
> access uses
> IP-relative addressing, but data accesses
> require absolute
> large -- Places no memory restriction on code or
> data. All
> accesses of code and data must be done with
> absolute address-
I wonder if -m64 without any additional options limits code and data
to 2GB? That would be not very logical, but I'm not sure.
Hmm. Presumably, -m64
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk