From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-19 11:09:08
Alexey Pakhunov <alexeypa <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Reece Dunn wrote:
> > + # sh
> > + sh3 sh3dsp sh4 sh5
> Can these shXxx be expressed via combinations of <architecture>sh and
> different <address-model> and <instruction-set>?
I was considering that, but we have mips1, mips2, mips3, etc. so I was being
The question is whether the sh and arm variants are different architectures
(as in mips2 vs mips4) or are address-model/instruction-set more relevant.
I suppose that sh3dsp can be expressed as
and arm4t as
but I don't have any (real) knowledge of these platforms, so I am not the best
person to comment.
> > +.known-platforms = i386 amd64 ia64 arm mips sh ;
> I don't see references to $(.known-platforms) in the code.
Doh! I am using this in my own logic (as my development branch is based on the
novcvars patch) which can make things confusing at times!
> I don't think you need an empty <address-model> here. Single
> <architecture> is enough to match correct settings. x86, amd64 and ia64
> is a bit different case because it is not possible to do the correct
> match using only <architecture>.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification :).
> > + cpu = i386 amd64 ia64 arm mips sh ;
> Sounds like it had to be $(.known-platforms).
Yes. I am using $(.known-platforms) regardless of what version of VC you have
setup as you may have a PlatformSDK version of VC7.x that supports IA64/AMD64 or
WinCE/embedded version of VC6 that supports ARM/MIPS/SH.
I should really change $(cpu) to $(.known-platforms).
> PS: msvc.jam is getting bigger and bigger.
I have noticed that! The problem is that it is one of the most complicated
toolsets when you consider how many variants there are, how it is setup and the
compiler/linker options that need to be setup. Especially when you consider
cross-compiler support :).
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