From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-25 08:52:38
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Tuesday 22 August 2006 15:21, you wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:44, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> I also note this:
>> >> # NOTES:
>> >> # - V1 had logic to force intel to use gcc's runtime.
>> >> # Note sure why that was needed, with icc 8.0 extensions
>> >> # built with intel are loaded by python without problems.
>> >> Has the version of Python also been built with Intel? If so you won't
>> >> see any problems, as the following v1 comment indicates:
>> >> # Normally on Linux, Python is built with GCC. A "poor QOI choice"
>> >> # in the implementation of the intel tools prevents the use of
>> >> # intel-linked shared libs by a GCC-built executable unless they
>> >> # have been told to use the GCC runtime. This rule adds the
>> >> # requisite flags to the compile and link lines.
>> > Sorry for continuing being dense, but I can't find any outstanding
>> > failures in Python tests on intel-9.0 (Martin Wille V2). So:
>> > - is this problem fixed in 9.0
>> I don't know.
>> > - is there any test that would have caught this problem and that I can
>> > run with intel 8.0 to check?
>> I don't know.
>> It may be (in fact it's likely) that Intel and GCC once had slight ABI
>> differences but have since converged.
> So, do you think it would be wise not to spend time on addressing a problem
> that does not show up in regression tests, and for which it's not know how to
> make Boost.Python fail?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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