Re: [Boost-build] V2/1.34: next steps

From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-13 06:35:39

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 13:45, Jim Douglas wrote:
>>Vladimir Prus wrote:
> If you already have initial qcc.jam for V2, can you try to follow the steps 
> outlined in:
> 
>   https://zigzag.cs.msu.su/boost.build/wiki/TestingNewToolset

Hmm. I think I would prefer to receive your stamp of approval before I 
commence testing :-)

>>qcc supports:
>>
>>- two compilers GNU gcc & Intel, with versions of both.
>>- two C++ standard laibraries GNU & Dinkumware with sub-variations
>>- self hosted (native) compilation on QNX
>>- cross compilation on Windows & Linux
>>- mutilple hardware targets: MIPS, PowerPC, SH-4, ARM, StrongArm, Intel®
>>XScaleâ„¢ Microarchitecture, and x86
> 
> Oh, that looks complex. So, 'qcc' is not a compiler in itself, but rather more 
> high-level tool for building binaries for QNX?

Correct.

>>One further requirement is that in order to run the regression tests in
>>a cross-development environment, bbv2 should support some form of remote
>>execution. (But that's for later...)
>>
>>It has been suggested by Reese Dunn (see thread started 3/11/2005) that
>>the bjam command line options could look something like:
>>
>>     $ bjam qcc-3.3 architecture=power stdlib=dinkum
>>     $ bjam qcc-2.95 architecture=x86 stdlib=default
>>
>>I have already ported a very crude version of qcc.jam for bbv2 that
>>works, but it is far from complete/perfect. However, we do not have to
>>implement all the features for v1.34. The "first cut" file is attached.
> 
> 
> Yes, I think all we need to to be able to run the regression tests with V2, 
> with the same confication as in V1. Advanced features can be implemented 
> later.

Overall, if we can achieve the same capabilities as bbv1 for v1.34 I 
will be happy - anything extra will be a bonus. My main concern is that 
we start off down a road that will allow us to develop the potential 
offered by QNX. IMHO a quick port of v1 would not give us that flexibility.

What is the best way forward?

Jim