Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost 1.36 portability issues on FreeBSD 6.x?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-23 15:36:14

Alexander Sack wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vladimir Prus
> <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Vladimir Prus
>>> <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> Yes very much so. In fact I believe within the Linux community there
>>> are differences between the Debian folks and the Fedora/SuSE community
>>> about how to treat 32-bit binaries on 64-bit systems on how lib/rtld
>>> work. I do know you CAN'T do this on a FreeBSD machine. It will
>>> cause odd build failures for sure.
>> Well, if you can spec exactly what paths should be added under which
>> circumstances, we surely can implement that.
> Ok, will try to come up with something.
>>> Any suggestions about the trap stuff?
>> Sorry, no specific suggestions. Commenting them out in Boost code seems
>> best.
> you know what the ramifications are? My guess is
> specific traps won't be thrown under boost. Of course, for FreeBSD 7,
> I think we might be ok.

It's been a long time since I've used Boost.Test, but I believe the only
problem is that if kernel delivers a signal Boost.Test does not know about,
Boost.Test won't be able to tell which signal it was. Now, if signal.h does
not define some signal it most likely means the kernel will never deliver
it, so you're safe.

>> My guess is that extra signal values can be just ignored.
> That's mine too at this point so I will attempt to come up with some
> patches and post for the official tree. It shouldn't be this hard to
> build Boost on FreeBSD (considering BSD is a standard UNIX distro).

Is there "standard UNIX"? :-)

- Volodya

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at