Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #397: Boost on opteron AMD

redi — Thu, 12 May 2005 15:45:04 GMT

Logged In: YES
user_id=426241
What exactly failed?
What compiler are you using?

finte — Fri, 13 May 2005 07:45:06 GMT

Logged In: YES
user_id=1277410
I use gcc 3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-branch+sol_rpath). This gcc
comes with solaris 10 as Sun Freeware.
I could build the boost libraries, no problem, but at the
end I have 32-bit libraries. I set the variable CFLAGS= -m64
- it doesn't works. I change the file user-config.jam and
add the following: using gcc : : /usr/sfw/bin/gcc
:<compileflags>-m64 <linkflags>-m64 ; - it doesn't works.
Then I made a new configure, setting the variable CXXFLAGS
and copy the new file user.hpp to .../boost/config/ - it
doesn't work. Always I got 32-bit libraries. What else
should I try?
If you need more infos, tell me.

nobody — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:13:51 GMT

Logged In: NO
Hi,
we have a very similar problem here on a Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 3.0
Opteron Machine. The g++ is configured to produce 64-bit
binaries as
one would exspect, but when trying to build 32-bit objects
via the "-m32"
option, the boost build mechanism simply seems to ignore the
option
provided.
Interestingly one can provide this option to the configure
script but in it's
output (the user.hpp file) the option only appears as a comment.
It seems to get completely ignored in the subsequent build
and test
stages !
Is this true or am I missing some way to configure things here ?
Thanks in advance
Frank-Oliver Malisch

finte — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:54:01 GMT

Logged In: YES
user_id=1277410
Hi,
I solved my problem, but it's a quit and dirty solution. I
modified  the file ../tools/build/v1/gcc-tools.jam and added
the following lines:
flags gcc CFLAGS : -m64 ;
flags gcc LINKFLAGS : -m64 ;
at the begining of the file, where other flags were set.
After this modification I got 64-bit libraries.
So this may help you.

status changed

René Rivera — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:22:39 GMT

status assigned → closed

Logged In: YES
user_id=33595
Originator: NO
This has been supported by asking to build the <architecture>x86/<address-model>64 variant. Specific CPU selection is also possible with the <instruction-set> feature. This same mechanism is supported int the upcoming 1.34 release also.