Re: [Boost-build] 4-way fat binaries

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] 4-way fat binaries
From: Michael Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-07 07:35:24

On Dec 7, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

>
> [Mat, Rene, I CC you as the resident OSX experts here]
>
> I've checked in the patch from
>
> 	https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1679
>
> that implements 4-way fat binaries on OSX. The command line syntax is:
>
> 	bjam architecture=combined address-model=32_64
>
> Because I go and document this, anybody has comments about the  
> naming? For one
> thing, should we use
>
> 	bjam architecture=x86_ppc address-model=32_64
>
> instead, as 'combined' seems somewhat vague. (Of course, we'll keep  
> 'combined' for
> backward compatibility)
>
> Thanks,
> Volodya
>
> -- 
> Vladimir Prus
> http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
> Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2

As and OS X Developer, the first time I tried to build boost as a  
Universal Binary it took me longer than it should have because  
boost.build didn't use the naming conventions that Apple had laid out,  
"Universal" or "Fat Binary". "Combined" just is not recognized on OS X  
as a proper "word" that describes Universal binary.

  Having said that, I understand that this needs to be "cross- 
platform" so my personal vote is for arch=i386,x86_64,ppc,ppc64 style.  
It covers _all_ the combinations.

Just as a corner case of your first suggestion, what if I want to  
build a 32bit i386 and a 64 bit PPC. What would the correct arguments  
be?

I humbly suggest: bjam arch=i386;ppc;x86_64;ppc64

Thanks for the time on this.
_________________________________________________________
Mike Jackson                  mike.jackson_at_[hidden]
             www.bluequartz.net