Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Building a cross platform framework
From: Michael Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-05 08:09:22

On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> Michael Jackson wrote:
>> And if they don't ask for anything then give them the default for the
>> platform they are compiling on.
> Do we somewhere give user a behaviour that is not default for the
> platfrom
> they compile on? Can you say specifically where?

Currently Boost.Build "does the right thing" when I don't specify any
arch flags. I am just saying don't break this functionality. It is
what most OS X developers expect, ie, that is the default for Xcode.
>> I would personally suggest allowing something like the variants in
>> the
>> configure line:
>> architecture=i386,x86_64,ppc,ppc64
>> Having gone through something similar on other projects and with
>> other
>> build systems. Don't try to out-think the user just do what they ask.
> Can you clarify what "out-thinking" means here. Note that
> architecture=i386,x86_64,ppc,ppc64
> actually has a well-defined meaning of building for 4 architectures.
> It's just that darwin, you can either build 4 separate binaries, or
> 1 fat binary, and it seems reasonable to use different wording for
> those behaviours.
> - Volodya

Building 4 separate binaries would be "out-thinking" the user. In OS X
it is a well understood convention that if you put multiple
architectures onto the compile flags then you want to end up with a
universal binary with those architectures included. _How_ you get
there is your choice. You can build 4 different executables and then
"lipo" them together or you can pass all 4 arch flags during the
compile and do it in one step.


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at