Subject: Re: [boost] Problem cross-compiling boost.context for Raspberry Pi (2)
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-16 04:30:01
2015-06-16 10:12 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Prus <vladimir.prus_at_[hidden]>:
Correct, but we're talking about ARM right now - there, adding <abi> to
> condition
> appears unnecessary and problematic. There is no chance of ambiguity
> between ARM
> and MIPs variants. Do you see any issues if <abi> property is removed from
> condition for all ARM variants?
>
At the moment the rules in context/build/Jamfile.v2 for ARM are over
specified,
e.g. architecture and address-mode are sufficient. I keep <abi> for ARM in
order to be
consistent with the rules for the other architectures in the Jamfile.
That means it is always a problem to determine the correct ABI and binary
format for
a certain compilation.
>
> boost.context determines the default values for ABI/binary-format on the
>> values returned by 'os.name' and 'os.platform'.
>> I don't know another way for reliable ABI/binary-format detection in
>> boost.build.
>>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, do you mean "boost.build" specifically? From your
> first
> observation, it appears that it's hard to detect ABI in any build system
> not
> using mind reading technology?
>
I use features os.name and os.platform from boost.build (boost.config?) to
set
ABI and binary format (e.g. the default values).