Re: [jamboost] The state of building jam...

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-30 00:34:09

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2002-10-30] David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> >Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> [2002-10-29] David Abrahams wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> prefered compiler in Win32... CodeWarrior. So I decided to add support
> >> for
> >> >> that, but after seeing all the various build scripts and instructions
> in
> >> >> jam_src I got frustrated at trying to change the Jambase to support
> it.
> >> So I
> >> >> decided to write a new set of scripts to compile jam(bjam) instead.
> >> >
> >> >I'm extremely excited about this effort! I definitely think we should
> >> >do something like this. 
> >> 
> >> :-)
> >> 
> >> >Have you considered using the Jam extensions for examining the
> >> >windows registry (one of the other Perforce users did it) to locate
> >> >the compiler to build bjam with?
> >> 
> >> No, had completely forgotten about that... but unfortunaly I don't think
> it
> >> helps in this case :-( As the guessing for the compiler is done outside
> of
> >> Jam, in the build.sh/bat. After all "b/jam" isn't built yet ;-) --
> >> bootstrapping is always a pain.
> >
> >Oh, of course ;-)
> >
> >Well, can your work be checked in without breaking anything?
> 
> Yes. As long as the other building/make files are not removed.

Go for it, then. We'll have to move things to the branch for 1.29.1
anyway, then.

> >I am thinking about making Boost 1.29.1 an "officially installable
> >and testable" release (whatever that means). Would you recommend
> >switching to your new stuff for 1.29.1, or would that be premature?
> 
> That depends on what platforms we think we MUST support. I can personally
> test win32/bcc, win32/codewarrior, linux-x86/gcc, linux-ppc/gcc,
> linux-sparc/gcc, and now also macosx/darwin. I'll have to check if my
> Solaris8/SPARC can still boot and compile. That leaves: msvc, cygwin, hpux,
> aix, irix, and tru64 that others would have to test. That's so we support at
> least the current downloads we have.
> 
> As for the code itself... right now it does more than the current build
> scripts. The only thing, I think, they don't do is support for making debug
> versions of b/jam.

That's a "fringe application" ;-)
Only people like us care about that, and we can use existing scripts.
This sounds promising...

-- 
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com