Re: [Boost-build] architecture/instruction-set

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:
>

[snip]

> > 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.
<architecture>x86-64 <cpu>pentium4

I think It would also work well for conditionals:

exe a : main.cpp : <architecture>arm:<define>BIG_ENDIAN
<architecture>x86:<define>LITTLE_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
> http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
> Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2

Regards,
-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida