Subject: Re: [boost] Problem cross-compiling boost.context for Raspberry Pi (2)
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-16 04:30:01
2015-06-16 10:12 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Prus <vladimir.prus_at_[hidden]>:
Correct, but we're talking about ARM right now - there, adding <abi> to
> appears unnecessary and problematic. There is no chance of ambiguity
> between ARM
> and MIPs variants. Do you see any issues if <abi> property is removed from
> condition for all ARM variants?
At the moment the rules in context/build/Jamfile.v2 for ARM are over
e.g. architecture and address-mode are sufficient. I keep <abi> for ARM in
order to be
consistent with the rules for the other architectures in the Jamfile.
That means it is always a problem to determine the correct ABI and binary
a certain compilation.
> boost.context determines the default values for ABI/binary-format on the
>> values returned by 'os.name' and 'os.platform'.
>> I don't know another way for reliable ABI/binary-format detection in
> For avoidance of doubt, do you mean "boost.build" specifically? From your
> observation, it appears that it's hard to detect ABI in any build system
> using mind reading technology?
I use features os.name and os.platform from boost.build (boost.config?) to
ABI and binary format (e.g. the default values).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk