Re: [jamboost] [BBv2] [msvc] VC8.0 cross-compilers and PSDK setups

From: Alexey Pakhunov (alexeypa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-03 07:04:18

> Andre Melnikov has got some code to get x86_amd64 and x86_ia64
> cross-compilers working (yay!) :)

I definitely need to change my name to something more recongnizable . :-)

> It would be nice, now that we have <architecture>, <address-model> and
> <instruction-set> to allow using ... ; to be configurable by these, that
> is, have:
>
> using toolset : command * : setup * : properties * ;
>
> where properties configure the toolset for some conditions, such as
> <os>cygwin.

Why don't register flags for all allowed conditions? Let's say VC 8.0
itself compiles for i386, amd64 and ia64. The 'init' rule will
register flags for all three conditions. This will work and a user
will be able to select right configuration using <architecture> and
other features.

Look at: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.build/10594

Even if we allow passing 'condition' to a toolset initialization we
still will need to be able to register all possible configurations.
Plus we will need to do additional validation.

> VC7.1 has supported amd64 and ia64 versions with the PSDK release, so I
> presume you could do something like:

[skip]

Implementing VC + PSDK configuration is a matter of correct INCLUDE,
LIB and PATH settings. It can be done in the way that Andrey Melnikov
offered. And this will not affect the 'msvc.init' rule.

> We would need to add auto-detection/support for these in msvc.jam like
> with Andre Melnikov's patch so that using msvc : 8.0 ; would register
> all cross-compiler variants.

This will be done automatically if the msvc.init rule will register
all configurations allowed for the given version of compiler.

> Also, the architecture feature needs to be extended to include arm and
> sh. MIPS is already covered and I am not yet sure how the cex86 compiler
> would be configured.

We can register different assembler names depending for each condition.

IMO: we can implement this feature but the same functionality can be
implemented without it using that same amount of work.

--
Best regards,
Alexey Pakhunov.