From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-31 12:28:13
Alexey Pakhunov wrote:
> Let's discuss 'cpu-arch' and 'msplatformsdk' features.
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>- the new msplatformsdk feature (without corresponding support in the
>>At minimum needs a better name if this is going to be a global feature.
> What name would you propose?
Well that depends on what it's doing. Currently you have it as a flag to
decided that the win32 sdk is either the one that comes with VC or the
one that comes from the MSPlatformSDK. It is conceivable that the win32
sdk can come from other sources, for example if one is doing a Wine
cross-compile. Or even if one wants to use the win32 sdk from MinGW.
Which brings up the question if this is a pattern that happens for other
SDKs? For example should we consider a "posixsdk" feature? And if so
should we really consider a more general way to specify an "sdk"?
With that in mind, I have a question for you. Would it make more sense
to handle the MSPlatformSDK in the same manner that we handle STLport?
(see the tools/stlport.jam file), i.e. should we have a
>>ia64 ;-) ...I've gone ahead and transplanted, and added, the features
>>present in BBv1 for this into BBv2.
> Taking into account the code below 'amd64' and 'ia64' can be mapped to:
> - amd64: <address-model>64 <architecture>x86
> - ia64: <address-model>64 <architecture>ia-64 <instruction-set>ia-64
> (Well, 'mapped' is not a good word. Let's say we will use features below
> instead of 'cpu-arch').
I really meant the part that I already put these into BBv2 ;-) If you do
a CVS update they are now in there.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
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