Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [build] is still broken
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-21 13:57:08


On 10/21/2013 10:32 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 21.10.2013 21:03, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
>> [STL]
>> [Rene Rivera]
>>> Could you post the diff patches as attachments? It's almost
>>> impossible to
>>> deal with inline diffs to apply these. Even though I can't test any of
>>> this. I'm willing to apply the patches.
>> Thanks! Download this:
>> As I explained in my mail, the diff for boost_1_54_0/ is a
>> horrible hack and should not be applied. It fixes mingw but breaks
>> everyone
>> else. I would love to get a real fix for this, but someone would have to
>> investigate.
>> The diffs for boost_1_54_0/tools/build/v2/engine/build.jam and
>> boost_1_54_0/tools/build/v2/engine/ should be applied - they fix
>> mingw and should not affect anyone else.
>> [Vladimir Prus]
>>> And on the mingw topic, I might have missed something, but I think the
>> major
>>> issue is still mingw vs. gcc naming inconsistency between
>>> and b2 proper - which is ugly, but not quite a showstopper?
>> That's what my boost_1_54_0/ diff is hacking around. It's a
>> showstopper in the sense that it completely breaks the build, and I
>> haven't
>> figured out how to evade it with command-line arguments.
> Ok. Rene, Steven, how about we s/mingw/gcc throughout b2 engine source?

I agree in principle, but it's not quite that easy.
mingw is treated slightly differently from gcc
(windows sources, not unix).

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

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