--- Markus Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin@web.de> wrote:
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
I am using Boost.Python all the time under Tru64 with cxx 6.5, and have been doing so for many years. I guess there must be a difference in how we compile. I am not using bjam but a SCons-based build system. The result of building with the Boost CVS from earlier this morning, including the cxx commands, is here:
http://cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/results/2005_06_15_0643/tru64_py241_build_log
All our regression tests (many) passed.
Could you please try the sample I posted and tell me if it compiles and links ok with your compiler version?
% cxx -V Compaq C++ V6.5-042 for Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1 (Rev. 732) Compiler Driver V6.5-042 (cxx) cxx Driver % cat z.cpp void foo(int); template <class T> void foo(T) { foo(0); } int main() { foo(0); } % cxx -std strict_ansi -tlocal -O2 -fast z.cpp ld: Unresolved: foo(int) % cxx -std strict_ansi -tlocal z.cpp ld: Unresolved: foo(int) % cxx -std strict_ansi z.cpp ld: Unresolved: foo(int) % cxx -std strict_ansi -model ansi z.cpp ld: Unresolved: foo(int) % cxx -std ansi z.cpp % a.out # takes "forever" % cxx z.cpp % a.out # takes "forever" It seems to be important to use "strict_ansi". That's what I have been using for Boost.Python compilation all the time. Cheers, Ralf __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/