Re: [Boost-build] Need an example of JAMSHELL usage with run.py

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Need an example of JAMSHELL usage with run.py
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-04 01:48:53

2013/7/3 Jürgen Hunold <jhunold_at_gmx.eu>

> Hi Antony,
>
> On Wednesday, 3. July 2013 19:41:08 Antony Polukhin wrote:
> > Questions:
> > * Setting testing.launcher or testing.runner did not work as expected.
> Can
> > that be fixed or is there some workaround?
>
> Can you please provide us more information? Did you try running b2 with
> "-d+2"
> to get the full commandlines involved? It might be that the arguments to
> "testing.launcher" need some more escaping and/or windows "\" path
> separators.
> The feature itself works fine, I'm using it on linux for test runs under
> valgrind. Some sample code would be fine, too. I could then try to do some
> cross testing on obscure arm or even Raspberry Pi.
>

Command line did not changed much since last time:

run.py
"--bjam-options=testing.launcher=d:/testing_boost_android/run_on_android.bat
% -j8 -d+4 threadapi=pthread target-os=linux toolset=gcc-android"
--bjam-toolset=msvc --pjl-toolset=msvc --runner=apolukhin-Android
--incremental

run_on_android.bat looks like:

echo "Input argumentas are %*"
echo "Input argumentas are %*"
>>D:\testing_boost_android\run_on_android_log.txt

Things that confuse me are  the following lines in bjam.log  "Executing
using a command file and
the shell: cmd.exe /Q/C" and that I can not see output from
'run_on_android.bat' script.

> * How can I disable linking with rt?
>
> I fear this is hardcoded into gcc.jam. But this can be disabled for
> Android,
> if necessary.
>

That would be nice. I would prefer more generic solution, something like
<not-link-with>rt option. It is required because some other libraries under
Android are also put into libc.

Or we can cooperate somehow, I'll send my user-config.jam and some of the
options may be put into b2.

BTW, if I put <threadapi>pthread in user-config.jam it is ignored. Is it OK?

>  > If there is no sane answer to those questions, then what are the plans
> for
> > moving Boost to more adequate build system (CMake)?
>
> Well, do not get me startet on cmake ;-) It has got cross compiling support
> only recently. And it is a meta-buildsystem.
>

Oops, bad example :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin