Vladimir Prus writes:

Bruce Reid wrote:

...

Found the cause of my previous trouble, and can now cross-build library for my target PowerPC platform.

What was the cause?

My operator error. The makefile was pointing to libraries built from a previous failed attempt, and after successfully cross-building them in a different location, I forgot to update the makefile.

...

However, my attempt to build and run the serialization example program demo_xml_save.cpp resulted in a segmentation fault with the backtrace below.

...

#0 0x0ff69004 in std::basic_ios::widen(char) const () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 #1 0x0ff956f0 in std::ostream::operator<<(long)() from #/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 #2 0x0ff95ba4 in std::ostream::operator<<(int)() #from/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5

Weird. Are you sure the version of libstdc++ on the PowerPC system where you run this is the same as included with your cross-compiler?

A large amount of software has been built for this embedded PowerPC application using the same set of tools without any libstdc++ compatibility issues, so I'm fairly confident the problem lies elsewhere, though I don't have a clue where, and can't afford any more time spent on this approach.

- Volodya

Frank Birbacher writes:

Hi!

Bruce Reid schrieb:

...

This effort is proving to be so problematic every step of the way, that I believe I will have to abandon my decision to use the boost library entirely, and instead implement my own clunky dump methods for every object I had hoped to serialize. Unfortunate, but I don't have time for all the nonsense.

What a pity. I guess you cannot get hold of a ppc to do a native build, can you? Cross compilation has always been difficult. It's not related to boost.

Frank

Hi Frank, Yes, it is regrettable, but unfortunately, building with native tools is not an option for this application. Bruce

Sohail Somani writes:

Bruce Reid wrote:

...

Yes, it is regrettable, but unfortunately, building with native tools is not an option for this application.

Instead of asking bjam to build it for you, why don't you use your own build system? It would be much less headache in this case. There isn't really much that isn't transferable (besides the conciseness.)

Hi, and thank you for this suggestion. I have had no prior experience with the Boost tools, and until this recent attempt to use the serialization lib, had never before heard of bjam, 'build systems', etc. I'm an old-fashioned makefile kind of guy; I might have some hope of succeeding with this effort if I were dealing with a familiar environment like that. My management has encouraged and agreed with the decision to abandon my attempt to apply a third-party tool to this project. With that, and due to time constraints, I have moved on. If I should have occasion to try again in the future, and have the luxury of sufficient time to embark on the research needed to understand what you mean by a 'Build System', then I'll be more fortunate than I am currently. Thanks again for the suggestion, Bruce

Hi! Bruce Reid schrieb:

Hi, and thank you for this suggestion. I have had no prior experience with the Boost tools, and until this recent attempt to use the serialization lib, had never before heard of bjam, 'build systems', etc. I'm an old-fashioned makefile kind of guy; I might have some hope of succeeding with this effort if I were dealing with a familiar environment like that.

My first approach using boost was to copy the source files into my project and just compile them like my other sources, too. This way they where compiled using the same compiler and same options as the rest of the program. I've done this until I got familiar with bjam. :) Frank