Hello Dane, On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Dane Springmeyer <blake@hailmail.net> wrote:
I'm now trying to compile boost (I happen to be using trunk), and am noticing that passing 'address-model-32_64' does not seem to have the effect I'd expect. If the flag is passed the only affect I notice is that the build directories include it 'address-model-32_64' in the path, but notably the '-arch -i386 -arch x86_64' flags are not properly added to the CXXFLAGS and LINKFLAGS. Therefore the compiled dynamic libraries are still single architecture, x86_64.
Passing 'architecture=combined' does prompt these flags, but includes the 'arch ppc' flag as well which I don't want. So, is it a bug that using address-model alone does not work or am I am misunderstanding something?
First check that you are using address-model=32_64, not address-model-32_64. Not sure whether the second works, but the first one is what I know for sure that works (works = just specifies the option in this case). To have Intel-only universal binary with IA32 and Intel64 architectures, use architecture=x86 along with address-model=32_64. The possible architectures for toolset=darwin are combined, x86, power and arm, and you have to always specify one of these explicitly if you are already specifying address-model, since there is no "fallback" architecture choice Boost.Build does when you don't specify one (i.e. simply no flags are set in that case and therefore g++ is used without any arch flags, i.e. outputting whatever is the default of the compiler on the build machine / os version / compiler version). On the other hand, specifying architecture and omitting address-model defaults to "32" (in fact, there is only 64 and 32_64, and everything else is a fallback case behaving like if "32" was specified and had its supposed meaning). Another question is whether there should be, for usability purposes, a default for architecture when address-model is specified. I currently have no opinion on what (if) the default should be :-). HTH, Boris