Re: [jamboost] [v2] como.jam or intel.jam?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-24 03:59:14

Larry Evans wrote:
> Anyone have a como.jam or intel.jam (corresponding to the
> build/v2/tool/gcc.jam)
> which they would like tested? If not, I'll try to make one, but I've
> very little
> experience with bjam either v1 or v2; so, help would be greatly
> appreciated.

Hi Larry,
since nobody responsed so far, I guess nobody has toolset ready. If I recall 
correctly, Chris Drexler was trying to make intel toolset. He run into 
problems, which were not soleved back then, so I don't think anything final 
was done. 

The problems that I remember were:

1. Some bug in response files handling. It was redode since that, so I expect 
it will just work.

2. Link-compatibility. Boost.Build has an opinion that <toolset>intel and 
<toolset>gcc are not link compatible, while in fact they are compatible on 
Linux. Some time ago, it was hard error, which stopped all processing. Now it 
will be warning, so this should not prevent any experiments. Also, I've 
recenly got an idea how to make Boost.Build smarter about link compatibility, 
which I can describe when needed.

The starting point for intel on Linux was:

import toolset : flags ;

toolset.register intel ;
toolset.inherit intel : gcc ;

rule init ( )
{

}

If intel is flag-compatible with gcc, this is almost all that should be 
done.... except that more pararameters to 'init' ,like compiler location, are 
desired.

- Volodya