Boost logo

Boost-Build :

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
> skipped.

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,

g++ ...whatever...

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, 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: 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

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at