From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 04:31:55
JÃ¼rgen Hunold wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2003 19:30, David Abrahams wrote:
> > Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > That's not the way I intended for intel support to work, though it
> > seems to be a decent stopgap measure. intel is supposed to be a
> > vendor variant, so that we can have an intel.jam toolset which
> > inherits from msvc and sets the vendor.
> Well, what about intel compiler for linux ?
> This should be a vendor variant of gcc (>= 3.3, of course), since the
> goal is to have intel-linux link-compatible to g++ sometime in the near
> intel-linux compiler is flag _and_ behaviour compatible with gcc
> already. It even supports <hardcode-dll-path> options with the same
> syntax ..
> Is ist possible to declare two toolsets in one .jam file ?
> Or how do we name them otherwise ?
That's a really hard question. Nothing prevents 'intel.jam' from having
conditional logic which does different things depending on platform. Of
course, that would prevent doing really fancy things like using both native
linux intel compiler and windows version under wine.
But such complexities might never arise. A bigger problem is that "bin/intel"
might refer to two really different toolset. Maybe, the simplest solution:
have 'intel-linux' and 'intel-win', is also the best one?
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk