Re: [Boost-users] Boost 1.36 portability issues on FreeBSD 6.x?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

Alexander Sack wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

...

Alexander Sack wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Vladimir Prus 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.

Hmmm....alright...do 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.

LOL, that's what I'm banking on!!! :D I'll have some patches to get this to go on FreeBSD.

Is there "standard UNIX"? :-)

No but its not spelled L-I-N-U-X despite what many would have you believe (nothing against it either)! :D Uggghhhh...point taken but still FreeBSD is pretty popular these days. Considering we've got case statements for other less popular UNIX variants, I'm kinda shocked Boost doesn't build out of the box on a BSD machine. -aps