Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2]some ideas

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 05:34:27

pal.tw wrote:
> --- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
> > I think cross-compiling was mentioned on this list a couple of times.
> > Could you give more details about your proposed "target-os" feature. Two
> > questions that come to mind
> > 1. shouldn't 'target-os' feature be optional?
> > 2. It it good idea to define various preprocessor symbols, line _WIN32
> > and UNICODE. Shouldn't the compile take care of this?

Hi Paul,
Quick reply to a part of your email:

> > > Is something wrong within the process of the expansion
> > > ?
> >
> > I don't know. Could you send a testcase for me to look at?
>
> I made a sample. You can use your library and unmark the line
> which invokes 'feature.compose' rule. The result is so strange...

I get
error: Unable to resolve target-id /System//kernel32

message. Which seems perfectly correct. I don't have any target with id of

/System//kernel32

Did you meant to use filename as value of <library> feature? This is not 
supposed to work, the "prebuilt" targets provide a cleaner alternative.

- Volodya

>
> > The same problem arisen with intel toolset, which, on linux, is
> > link-compatible with gcc, so yes, a solution is needed. If you could
> > propose one, that would be great. Basically, we need some way to say,
> > "<toolset>intel" is compatible with "<toolset>gcc", even if <toolset> is
> > link-incompatible. The devil is in the detail -- how to say that.
>
> okay, I will express my idea in detail in this weekend.
>
> - Paul Lin
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> ¨C¤Ñ³£ Yahoo!©_¼¯
> ®üªºÃC¦â¡B­·ªº®ð®§¡B·R§Aªº·Å«×¡AºÉ¦b«H¯È©³¹Ï
> «H¯È©³¹Ï