From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-17 11:20:13
John Maddock wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> But speaking of that... Should we add an architecture tag to the
>> library names? There was also a suggestion on the user list some time
>> ago of adding a user settable build tag so that users could tag
>> individual build+installs.
> Both are do-able in the auto-link code (at least I think they are!)
How detailed can we get? I'm assuming when you think it's possible you
are perhaps only thinking of 32 vs. 64? In BB the architecture can get
fairly detailed as far as the CPU. So it would include the address model
(16, 32, and 64), the CPU architecture (x86, ia64, sparc, etc.), and the
CPU instruction set (i386, i486, i586, i686, pentium, v7, ultrasparc,
power, rios, rm7000, and many others).
Not that we would include all that info. Obviously at minimum we would
want to limit it to both what is possible to detect at PP time, and what
is link incompatible. Which is likely to take out at least the
instruction set distinction.
> Suggestions? Add an archetecture flag in addition to the thread etc tags?
Currently we have:
<base> <toolset> <threading> <runtime> -$(BOOST_VERSION_TAG)
As the OP suggested it likely makes most sense to add a single tag
between the toolset and threading as that keeps a somewhat relevance
<base> <toolset> <architecture> <threading> <runtime>
The tag would be: -/address-model/_/cpu/
> We (still) need a way to test this properly BTW.
OK, could you expand on what the testing problem is?
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
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