No OSPLAT for AMD64 Linux

Deane Yang wrote:
> Jared W. Robinson wrote:
>> It looks like I'm not the only one that has wanted
jam.h updated to
>> define the OSPLAT.  OSPLAT, in my opinion, should
always be defined --
>> for "sparc", "x86" and now
"x86_64". Wouldn't it make sense to define
>> this in the Boost CVS sources rather than have
several people maintain
>> their own patches?
> 
> 
> Yes, I support this request.
> 
>> Who will make this change? Rene?

Yea, that would be me. I'd need a patch against the CVS
state posted to 
the SF tracker though.


-- 
-- 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 Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 08:25:33PM -0600, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Deane Yang wrote:
> > Jared W. Robinson wrote:
> >> It looks like I'm not the only one that has
wanted jam.h updated to
> >> define the OSPLAT.  OSPLAT, in my opinion,
should always be defined --
> >> for "sparc", "x86" and now
"x86_64". Wouldn't it make sense to define
> >> this in the Boost CVS sources rather than have
several people maintain
> >> their own patches?
> > 
> > Yes, I support this request.
> > 
> >> Who will make this change? Rene?
> 
> Yea, that would be me. I'd need a patch against the CVS
state posted to 
> the SF tracker though.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want me to create a patch
and email
it to you? What is the "SF tracker"?

Thank you,

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

I've created a new issue with patch included:
http://sou
rceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1619769&a
mp;group_id=7586&atid=307586

Thanks,

- Jared

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 08:25:33PM -0600, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Deane Yang wrote:
> > Jared W. Robinson wrote:
> >> It looks like I'm not the only one that has
wanted jam.h updated to
> >> define the OSPLAT.  OSPLAT, in my opinion,
should always be defined --
> >> for "sparc", "x86" and now
"x86_64". Wouldn't it make sense to define
> >> this in the Boost CVS sources rather than have
several people maintain
> >> their own patches?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I support this request.
> > 
> >> Who will make this change? Rene?
> 
> Yea, that would be me. I'd need a patch against the CVS
state posted to 
> the SF tracker though.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build