Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Spencer E. Olson (olsonse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-24 10:58:53
On Sunday 23 May 2010 09:55, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On 5/23/2010 1:00 AM, Spencer E. Olson wrote:
> > My two, three, or four cents on the matter:
> > I have absolutely nothing against C++, I certainly prefer it over c, but
> > we've found many difficulties compiling all of boost already. If bjam
> > went with a c++ underneath, I would prefer it to be portable, allowing me
> > to continue using Boost.Build even where Boost is not yet tractable.
> Hm, I also worry about the portability issue as you do. And it would be
> the one item that makes me rethink depending on Boost for bjam. But I do
> have one question for you.. Doesn't having something like GCC on each of
> those platforms mitigate the problem? I know it's not an ideal solution,
> but it's not unprecedented to require a "better" compiler for tools. Or
> to put it another way; Is GCC available in all the platforms you might
> have problems with?
Not always. Sometimes there are very old versions around, which might
suffice, but we don't have any current promise from sysadmins that they will
stay around. The IBMs (AIX) are particularly problematic for us.
> > 2. Issue with Boost.Spirit
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