From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-24 18:06:10
Bart <bartmann.nsd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> When you attempted to build the library, were there several
> 'gcc-C++-action' statements before the 'gcc-Link-action' statements?
> The messages above make it appear as if the compiling step was
I don't think so; those were only a selection of the messages, not
meant to be a complete dump.
It seems clear to me that the command used to do the compilation,
is generating XCOFF32 object files, either because the g++ in the path
is the wrong one, or because we ought to be passing some special flag
to make it generate 64-bit object files.
I don't see any architecture called "IBM SP2," as Patrik said he
was targeting, at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.0/gcc/, but I
guess that -maix64 must be supported despite not being documented
(Patrik, you should report that as a GCC bug!)
Patrik, in order to address this, we (and thus you) will have to know
what the proper compiler options are for targeting your platform. I
suggest you pass "-odump.txt" as the first argument to bjam and look
at the resulting "dump.txt" file to make sure the command-lines look
right. Also, I guess you're not the only one who's had this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10815. I suggest you read
through that record --- I hope you'll either find the info we need
there, or it will tell you that you have a buggy gcc toolset and need to
To the Boost.Build guys: should we be doing something explicit in
gcc-tools.jam (and gcc.jam for v2) to support this architecture?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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