Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Need help testing whether Boost Jam compiles on different platforms.
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-27 13:30:03

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:38:03PM +0200, Jurko Gospodnetić wrote:
>> At [1] are build logs for the following platforms and compilers:
>> * AIX 5.3 - gcc, vacpp
>> * Ubuntu Lucid (10.04) - gcc, intel-linux, pathscale, pgi
>> * OS X 10.7.4 (XCode 4.4.1) - darwin, gcc
>> * Ubuntu Precise (12.04) - gcc
>> * Solaris 10 - gcc, sun
>> * Windows 7 (mingw-w64 4.7.1) - mingw64, vc10, vc9
>> [1]
> Wow, thanks! Everything I could have wished for and more... :-)
> I've gone through the logs now and fixed what I could.
> I've noticed that the unpatched logs for Windows builds made using
> build.bat start with 'The system cannot find the batch label specified -
> Test_Option'. Since 'Test_Option' is a valid label in that batch file,
> I'm assuming you ran those builds using some sort of an automated setup
> which modifies the build.bat file while it is still running - generally
> a no-no for Windows batch files.

I did no modification of build.bat, all I did was invoke them with CALL
from a parent batch file.

This round, I did it manually instead, as I don't want to learn more
about Batch scripting than I already know :D

>> A quick skimming of the logs reveals that the sun toolset seems to have
>> gone crazy with the changes.
> As it seems to be complaining about 'invalid whitespace' in lines that
> surely have no syntax errors in them - it could be that Windows-style
> line endings are confusing it.

Resolved by using the right endings.

>> Other toolsets complain about implicit declarations for some things.
>> Disregard the linker errors from GCC on AIX, it has never been able to
>> link anything but it can compile things.
> Related to these warnings - here are some I have no idea how to avoid:
> * lucid-intel_linux toolset - function.c(2154): warning #279:
> controlling expression is constant assert( !"invalid result
> location" );
> * Rather terse warnings given by the lucid-pgi toolset. I'll see
> if I can do anything about those at the end as I guess that will
> take several change/retest round-trips to figure our what exactly
> it's complaining about.
> Anyone else have any suggestions on how to avoid these?
> I've updated the pathunix.c patched module with a missing #include and
> am attaching all the patched files in two separate archives this time -
> once with Windows and once with Unix-style line endings.
> Could you rerun the newly attached tests when you get the time,
> please? And if rerunning the sol10-sun toolset, use the Unix-style
> line-endings version.

I've re-run it on all the aformentioned toolsets but the OS X ones, as I
do not have access to that machine outside of work.

The logs for this session are up at

I removed all the "Assembler:" and "relocatable" spam from the sol10-gcc
one and the ".llong" cruft from aix53-gcc. It's harder than it looks to
get a working GCC on awesome platforms.

You should note that my aix53-gcc, sol10-gcc and sol10-sun are not
ever capable of linking something, but they should compile things

Warnings are gone from everything but the PGI build.

Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]

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