Yep we really do have a completely different compiler\toolchain from any currently present, with different switches to GCC, different extensions for compiled objects etc.

Of course bjam doesn't need to be built for the target architecture :) It's just that while poking around it looked like bjam needed to have some knowledge about the toolchains it was building for and I suspected that the .jam files in the directory I mentioned earlier were a means to do this. Effectively I want to take steps to make our tools one of the "Builtin tools", mentioned in the help here: http://www.boost.org/boost-build2/doc/html/bbv2/reference/tools.html, so our customers can build Boost with our tools without any fuss.

- Sean

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:00:05 +0400

From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] building boost with unsupported compiler

To: boost-users@lists.boost.org

Message-ID: <h1qqlh$b7t$1@ger.gmane.org>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

McLemon, Sean wrote:

> Hi,

>

> 

>

> I'm looking to build Boost with a compiler not currently supported, but

> I'm struggling to find information on where I should really begin. It

> seems that I'll need to create my own toolset module (something like

> ..../boost_1_39_0/tools/build/v2/tools/blackfin.jam) with the

> toolchain's specific build switches etc,

You should only do that if you really have a custom compiler. For gcc port,

the 'gcc' toolset is fine.

> rebuild bjam then build Boost.

No need to rebuild bjam -- it's a host program.

> I presume that boost also has some libraries which may need some

> specific options, or tweaking to work but am I getting the gist of it

> correctly? Should I be expecting major configuration headaches

> (toolchain-specific build\runtime issues aside) in adding a new

> architecture?

I would not expect too much problems. I know folks were compiling Boost

for arm-linux, in particular, with minor issues.

- Volodya