Re: [Boost-users] Using 'address-model-32_64' on Mac OS 10.6

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Using 'address-model-32_64' on Mac OS 10.6
From: Dane Springmeyer (blake_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-11 11:38:02

On Jan 10, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Boris Dušek wrote:

> Hello Dane,
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Dane Springmeyer  
> <blake_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm now trying to compile boost (I happen to be using trunk), and am
>> noticing that passing 'address-model-32_64' does not seem to have  
>> the effect
>> I'd expect. If the flag is passed the only affect I notice is that  
>> the build
>> directories include it 'address-model-32_64' in the path, but  
>> notably the
>> '-arch -i386 -arch x86_64' flags are not properly added to the  
>> CXXFLAGS and
>> LINKFLAGS. Therefore the compiled dynamic libraries are still single
>> architecture, x86_64.
>>
>> Passing 'architecture=combined' does prompt these flags, but  
>> includes the
>> 'arch ppc' flag as well which I don't want. So, is it a bug that  
>> using
>> address-model alone does not work or am I am misunderstanding  
>> something?
>
> First check that you are using address-model=32_64, not
> address-model-32_64.

Right, I spelled it wrong when re-typing in the email, but have it  
right in the bjam command.

> Not sure whether the second works, but the first
> one is what I know for sure that works (works = just specifies the
> option in this case).
>
> To have Intel-only universal binary with IA32 and Intel64
> architectures, use architecture=x86 along with address-model=32_64.

Great, that did it! Thanks so much!

Dane