Re: [Boost-users] [Boost 1.33.1].[64-bit]

From: Boris Gubenko (Boris.Gubenko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-23 15:54:31

Vladimir Prus wrote:
>
> I'm afraid that would require editing acc.jam, that toolset does not use
> the general mechanisms used to specify toolset options when configuring
> the toolset.

Something to look into, eventually... :-)

Thanks for the reply!

-boris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Boost 1.33.1].[64-bit]

> Boris Gubenko wrote:
> 
>> Prashant Thakre wrote:
>>>
>>> That would force users of boost to build 64-bit binaries even if they
>>> don't want to.
>> 
>> Most likely some users will and some won't: there is no way to satisfy all
>> users with a single default.
>> 
>> The users wanting 32-bit libraries will either have to remove +DD64 or
>> override it by adding +DD32 to the flags. I don't know bjam and
>> Boost.Build v2 well enough to suggest how to override it outside acc.jam.
> 
> I'm afraid that would require editing acc.jam, that toolset does not use
> the general mechanisms used to specify toolset options when configuring
> the toolset.
> 
> - Volodya
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
> 
>