Re: [boost] Problem cross-compiling boost.context for Raspberry Pi (2)

Subject: Re: [boost] Problem cross-compiling boost.context for Raspberry Pi (2)
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-16 09:26:15

On 6/16/2015 11:30 AM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> 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
>> condition
>> 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
> specified,
> 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
> format for
> a certain compilation.

It seems to me that consistency between different architectures forces users
of ARM to specify abi, which is not great. I would recommend dropping abi
requirements there.

>>   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
>>> boost.build.
>>>
>>
>> For avoidance of doubt, do you mean "boost.build" specifically? From your
>> first
>> observation, it appears that it's hard to detect ABI in any build system
>> not
>> using mind reading technology?
>>
>
> I use features os.name and os.platform from boost.build (boost.config?) to
> set
> ABI and binary format (e.g. the default values).

These tell you host os. I doubt that could be helpful to determine ABI really.

- Volodya