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 11:16:30

On Dec 7, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> On Sunday 07 December 2008 15:35:24 Michael Jackson wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> This might be good, but it's fairly incompatible with how things works
> on other platforms Boost.Build support and would make things slightly
> better on OSX by default, but confusing for cross-platform  
> development.
>
> Besides, if you want to separately build x86 32 bit and x86 64 bit  
> binaries,
> how do you specify that?
>
>> 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?
>
> Right now, it's
>
> 	architecture=x86/address-model=32  architecture=ppc/address-model=64
>
> In a future version, this will be
>
> 	architecture=x86 address-model=32 -- architecture=ppc address- 
> model=64
>
>> I humbly suggest: bjam arch=i386;ppc;x86_64;ppc64
>
> Did you mean to use different separators? ';' used to separate two  
> different
> kinds of things is somewhat confusing.
>
> - Volodya
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

 From a user interface perspective, you are separating 2 variables  
that really go together. The arch and the addressing model need to be  
together. It is less confusing that way. By having them separate you  
leave open the possibility of someone listing the archs first then the  
addressing models second. There is no indication that architecture=x86  
address-model=32 are actually related to each other when if fact they  
are very much related.

So maybe something like
bjam -arch=i386,32 -arch=ppc,64 -arch=sparc,64

But those variables really need to be put together.

Just my opinion.
_________________________________________________________
Mike Jackson                  mike.jackson_at_[hidden]
BlueQuartz Software                    www.bluequartz.net
Principal Software Engineer                  Dayton, Ohio