From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-01 15:04:59
On Dec 1, 2007 5:55 PM, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > How about:
> > <architecture>x86
> > <cpu-tune>pentium4
> > <cpu>pentium3
> > ?
> > Where <cpu> is the minimum required to run.
> > Does it mirror well to other architectures?
> Well, using arm as example, I think:
> <architecture>arm <cpu>armv5t
> is probably redundant a bit.
Most of the time users wouldn't explicit their architecture/cpu. Also,
couldn't <architecture> be deduced?
And it would work better, IMO, for x64 support.
I think It would also work well for conditionals:
exe a : main.cpp : <architecture>arm:<define>BIG_ENDIAN
Now, I don't have any strong opinion about architecture/cpu names.
But I find the separation I did to be very helpful.
> - Volodya
> Vladimir Prus
> Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
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