darwin.jam vs gcc.jam

Rene Rivera <grafikrobotgmail.com> writes:

> Deane Yang wrote:
>> David Abrahams <dave <at>
boost-consulting.com> writes:
>>  
>>> What is the difference, please?  They both
contain Darwin support.
>>> Which one is up-to-date?  
>>>
>>> Unless there's a very good reason for a
separate toolset, darwin.jam
>>> should be eliminated.
>>>
>> 
>> I hope someone more knowledgeable than me will pipe
up. I can only say that
>> gcc.jam does not work on my Mac (if I remember
correctly, it complains that
>> "-shared" is not a valid option for gcc),
but darwin.jam does.
>
> The best way I can think to phrase the two toolsets:
>
> *gcc.jam*
>
> Supports the canonical GNU GCC tools. These would
possibly be available 
> under MacOS-X if one custom builds the GCC
distribution. Or possibly if 
> one installs the ones available through the various
Unix utility installers.

Has anyone tested that?  Do we have confidence that the
toolset can be
used that way?

> *darwin.jam*
>
> Supports the Apple customized build of the GNU GCC
tools. Apple adds new 
> functionality and modifies some existing functionality
to integrate and 
> work with their XTools. This includes things like the
handling of 
> frameworks and multi-target binaries/bundles.

Huh, OK.

Well, I think it's going to trip people up.  We could use
SHELL to
invoke the compiler with --version and detect which one of
these we're
using.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

David Abrahams wrote:
> Rene Rivera <grafikrobotgmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Supports the canonical GNU GCC tools. These would
possibly be available 
>> under MacOS-X if one custom builds the GCC
distribution. Or possibly if 
>> one installs the ones available through the various
Unix utility installers.
> 
> Has anyone tested that?  Do we have confidence that the
toolset can be
> used that way?

Hm, I haven't. That's from what I understand of the gcc
support. Hence I 
could be wrong 

>> *darwin.jam*
>>
>> Supports the Apple customized build of the GNU GCC
tools. Apple adds new 
>> functionality and modifies some existing
functionality to integrate and 
>> work with their XTools. This includes things like
the handling of 
>> frameworks and multi-target binaries/bundles.
> 
> Huh, OK.
> 
> Well, I think it's going to trip people up.  We could
use SHELL to
> invoke the compiler with --version and detect which one
of these we're
> using.

Definitely, especially given that's exactly how the MinGW
version of GCC 
is detected.


-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software
.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On 11 Dec 2006, at 13:46, Rene Rivera wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Rene Rivera <grafikrobotgmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Supports the canonical GNU GCC tools. These
would possibly be  
>>> available
>>> under MacOS-X if one custom builds the GCC
distribution. Or  
>>> possibly if
>>> one installs the ones available through the
various Unix utility  
>>> installers.
>>
>> Has anyone tested that?  Do we have confidence that
the toolset  
>> can be
>> used that way?
>
> Hm, I haven't. That's from what I understand of the gcc
support.  
> Hence I
> could be wrong 

Shall I just try to install gcc and build Boost on my Mac to
see what  
happens?

Matthias

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build