Bart
When you attempted to build the library, were there several 'gcc-C++-action' statements before the 'gcc-Link-action' statements?
The messages above make it appear as if the compiling step was skipped.
I don't think so; those were only a selection of the messages, not meant to be a complete dump. It seems clear to me that the command used to do the compilation, g++ ...whatever... is generating XCOFF32 object files, either because the g++ in the path is the wrong one, or because we ought to be passing some special flag to make it generate 64-bit object files. I don't see any architecture called "IBM SP2," as Patrik said he was targeting, at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.0/gcc/, but I guess that -maix64 must be supported despite not being documented (Patrik, you should report that as a GCC bug!) Patrik, in order to address this, we (and thus you) will have to know what the proper compiler options are for targeting your platform. I suggest you pass "-odump.txt" as the first argument to bjam and look at the resulting "dump.txt" file to make sure the command-lines look right. Also, I guess you're not the only one who's had this problem: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10815. I suggest you read through that record --- I hope you'll either find the info we need there, or it will tell you that you have a buggy gcc toolset and need to upgrade. To the Boost.Build guys: should we be doing something explicit in gcc-tools.jam (and gcc.jam for v2) to support this architecture? Cheers, Dave -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com