Ubuntu build problem

[Ian Emmons]

I have a fairly complex piece of software that I build with  
Boost.Build on both Windows and Macintosh (with both 32- and 64-bit  
builds on each).  I recently decided to add Linux to my platform  
repertoire, so I got Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit installed.  I verified that I  
can build hello-world as both 32- and 64-bit by invoking g++ directly  
with the -m32 and -m64 switches.  However, when I try to build using  
Boost.Build, with address-model=32,64 on the command line, I get two  
64-bit executables, one in bin/.../address-model-32 and the other in  
bin/.../address-model-64.  (I am using the "file" command to check the  
executables' bit-ness.)

By invoking bjam with the -n switch, I can see the g++ command lines,  
which differ only in the number used in the address-model-NN portion  
of the path names.  There is no -m32 or -m64 switch issued from  
Boost.Build.  What's am I doing wrong?

I am using bjam 3.1.16 and the version of Boost.Build that ships with  
Boost 1.38.0.  My toolset is fixed in user-config.jam using the command

    using gcc ;

Thanks in advance,

Ian
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

[Ian Emmons]

Nevermind -- this problem is resolved when I update to the version of  
Boost.Build that ships with Boost 1.40.0.


On Oct 5, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Ian Emmons wrote:

> I have a fairly complex piece of software that I build with  
> Boost.Build on both Windows and Macintosh (with both 32- and 64-bit  
> builds on each).  I recently decided to add Linux to my platform  
> repertoire, so I got Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit installed.  I verified that  
> I can build hello-world as both 32- and 64-bit by invoking g++  
> directly with the -m32 and -m64 switches.  However, when I try to  
> build using Boost.Build, with address-model=32,64 on the command  
> line, I get two 64-bit executables, one in bin/.../address-model-32  
> and the other in bin/.../address-model-64.  (I am using the "file"  
> command to check the executables' bit-ness.)
>
> By invoking bjam with the -n switch, I can see the g++ command  
> lines, which differ only in the number used in the address-model-NN  
> portion of the path names.  There is no -m32 or -m64 switch issued  
> from Boost.Build.  What's am I doing wrong?
>
> I am using bjam 3.1.16 and the version of Boost.Build that ships  
> with Boost 1.38.0.  My toolset is fixed in user-config.jam using the  
> command
>
>   using gcc ;
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ian

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

[Vladimir Prus]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 Ian Emmons wrote:

> Nevermind -- this problem is resolved when I update to the version of  
> Boost.Build that ships with Boost 1.40.0.

Yes, that's expected. In 1.38, address-model=32 did not result in -m32
being passed, so you got 64-bit binary if the compiler defaults to 64.

- Volodya

P.S. I have actually tried to respond earlier, but was on vacation and
had my post moderated out :-/ Annoying, but it should be mentioned that
boost devel mailing list just out rejected my postings.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build