RE: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel Compiler 7.0?

From: Tom Matelich (tmatelich_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-21 11:48:59

One other thing I should point out to you about building, or actually lack
there of, inside MSVC.  Intel doesn't know how to generate the PDB files
themselves, so they call MSVC's cl to do it for them.  This is a problem
because if cl can't build the file, it doesn't generate any dependencies for
it.  If you use templates that MSVC can't handle, you'll probably want to
switch to makefiles.  We did.  Fortunately, qmake rocks :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adutoit [mailto:adutoit_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:16 AM
> To: Boost-Users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel
> Compiler 7.0?
> 
> 
> Right; here are my compiler options, build configuration and the rest.
> 
> Basically I am building a static library, which depends on 
> some in-house
> software components, Qt and Boost.
> Our own library S3FC (), uses templates in such a manner as 
> to make MSVC6
> very unhappy.  Therefore we use the Intel compiler under M$.
> Needless to say, our software compiles problemfree with GCC.  For the
> aforementioned and other reasons we do not make use of
> Microsoft Foundation Classes when compiling under Windoze, but use the
> latest version of STLPort (which has been at the same version 
> level for some
> time now).
> 
> Anyway; our Windows development work takes place under Visual 
> C++ but with
> the Intel compiler (version 7.0) selected instead of the 
> MSVC6 compiler.
> 
> OK; with this background then, here is the basic Visual C++ 
> project settings
> for my build of the above-mentioned library.  I have removed 
> include paths
> etc. which point to in-house
> software:
> 
> 1) "Not Using MFCC" selected for general project settings (as 
> explained
> above).
> 2) Warning level => 3
>     Optimizations => Maximise Speed
>      Debug info => None
> 3)  Project Options =>
>     /nologo /ML /W3 /GR /GX /O2 /D "NDEBUG" /D "DEP_MS_WIN" 
> /D "WIN32" /D
> "_WINDOWS"
> /U "QT_NO_STL" /Fp"Release/libs3_qt.pch" /YX /Fo"Release/" 
> /Fd"Release/" /FD
> /c
> 
> The include and library paths for STLPort is set somewhere 
> else, but these
> are basically the options.
> 
> If anyone knows of any special project options, preprocessor 
> directives I am
> perhaps missing for building Boost-related projects with the 
> Intel compiler,
> please let me know!
> I suspect that we will soon be using Boost for other 
> functionality besides
> that provided by date_time at the moment.  Besides, I like 
> the library and
> works in our main development environment,
> Linux with the GCC compiler.
> 
> OK, I am forgetting about this problem for a day or two...
> Thanks to everyone who has provided me with help so far, 
> especially Jeff
> Garland.
> 
> Greetings,
> Andre.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
> To: <Boost-Users_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and 
> Intel Compiler
> 7.0?
> 
> 
> >
> > > Anyway; it just irks me that I should have issues with 
> 'standard' stuff,
> > > like streaming operators.
> > > And the fact that the same code compiles with MSVC6 and 
> NOT the Intel
> > > compiler.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > Back on the #define which started my woes.  The fact of 
> the matter is, I
> get
> > > everything compiled when using MSVC6 and not the Intel compiler!
> > > I.e. the MSVC6-specific code works, the 'other' compiler 
> code for the
> > > supposedly more Boost-compliant/friendly Intel compiler does not.
> >
> > I guess I was thinking that what was happening is that when 
> compiling
> > with Intel you were getting the MSVC defined and hence were 
> taking the
> > non-generic code.  Perhaps not...
> >
> > Have you tried to run the tests in libs/date_time/test with your
> > Intel/STLPort configuration?  That might help diagnose the issue.
> > Also, it might be instructive to post your compile command.  Perhaps
> > someone with experience on Intel can figure out why your 
> configuration
> > differs from the one that apparently passes the tests.
> >
> > > Could it be because I am using STLPort in conjunction 
> with the Intel
> > > compiler?
> >
> > Might be a factor.  There have been some issues before with 
> the library
> > configuration assuming MSVC limitations which don't apply 
> with STLPort
> > in the mix.
> >
> > > Aargh.  Just give me Linux and GCC...
> >
> > Agreed :-)
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > Info: <http://www.boost.org>
> > Wiki: 
> <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
> > Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading!
> Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/EbFolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Info: <http://www.boost.org>
> Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:  Information contained in this message and/or
attachment(s) may contain confidential information of Zetec, Inc.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender by return email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------