Building boost on Mac OS X 10.6 with XCode 3.2

Getting boost to build in ‘fat binaries’ is a pain when you’ve just switched to XCode 3.2. Switching to XCode 3.2 is somewhat obligatory, because that also brings you the SDK for Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard. And when you run the Snow Leopard, you want the SDK for it as well. It sounds so simple.

The Apple version of gcc, included in XCode, stops building boost in fat versions, it works for targeted versions (i.e. with only one architecture). But, if you want to build ‘universal’ binaries that work in 64bit and 32bit mode, you’re out of luck.

I got it to build this morning, thanks to some discussions on the boost mailing list. And it == boost 1_40_0, with XCode 3.2 on Snow Leopard.

This is the command-line I used:

bjam --build-dir=../boost_build --layout=versioned toolset=darwin architecture=combined address-model=32_64 link=shared,static install

And here is the patch I created to get it to work. It boils down to: remove all the ppc entries from the tools/build/v2/tools/darwin.jam, because the XCode compiler does not offer support for PPC anymore. And, you have to remove the “-m64” option in the gcc.jam, because the xcode compiler does not like to have -arch x86_64 -arch i386 -m64 all together on the command-line.

But, if you take the road of building your code on XCode 3.2, you specifically eliminate all those users still using a PPC based Mac. That might not be what you intended. In that case you probably need to add the -V 4.0.1. option to gcc/g++ in which case you use the older compiler (from XCode 3.1), which might or might not be what you need for your project.

(Sorry for the stupid looks on the patch, but wordpress mangles stuff with the <code> tag).


diff --recursive -u boost_1_40_0.orig/tools/build/v2/tools/darwin.jam boost_1_40_0/tools/build/v2/tools/darwin.jam
--- boost_1_40_0.orig/tools/build/v2/tools/darwin.jam 2009-04-14 09:59:30.000000000 +0200
+++ boost_1_40_0/tools/build/v2/tools/darwin.jam 2009-09-06 08:01:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -304,9 +304,9 @@
: $(values) ;
}

-arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 32 : -arch i386 -arch ppc : default ;
-arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 64 : -arch x86_64 -arch ppc64 ;
-arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 32_64 : -arch i386 -arch ppc -arch x86_64 -arch ppc64 ;
+arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 32 : -arch i386 : default ;
+arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 64 : -arch x86_64 ;
+arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : combined : 32_64 : -arch i386 -arch x86_64 ;

arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : x86 : 32 : -arch i386 : default ;
arch-addr-flags darwin OPTIONS : x86 : 64 : -arch x86_64 ;
diff --recursive -u boost_1_40_0.orig/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam boost_1_40_0/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam
--- boost_1_40_0.orig/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam 2009-07-11 13:04:31.000000000 +0200
+++ boost_1_40_0/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam 2009-09-06 08:11:17.000000000 +0200
@@ -375,7 +375,8 @@
}
else
{
- option = -m64 ;
+ # option = -m64 ;
+ option = ;
}
}
OPTIONS on $(targets) += $(option) ;

Advertisements

Blogging with OneNote

All of a sudden there is a small note inside the ‘right-click’-menu that says “Blog This”. Now, that sounds interesting. It may be the feature that I’ve been looking for some while. Currently I’m using the Microsoft Live Writer to create new postings to the blog, but if I can keep the number of dependencies down to get a working laptop, I’m all for it.

So, does it work, is the general question?

First we think of a new subject for a blogpost. In this case, it concerns creating blogposts. Of course, this is quite a stupid subject and a bit of a meta-blog in itself. But then again, sometimes you have to get stuff like that written out. It even gets worse. When you tell OneNote to ‘Blog this’ it copies everything into MS Word. How about an unexpected result. But, how to get to the rest? The ribbon tells there’s a ‘Publish’ button.

When you press it, it offers to enter the essential information for blogging, and then you’re off. And, surprise, surprise, it actually seems to work. Well, sort of. All the stuff you ordinarily expect, like adding tags, setting the categories, is not quite where you expect them. Actually, I haven’t been able to find them at all.

Further, the text becomes riddled with html tags, which makes the layout quite different from your average blogpost. That’s really not what you would expect from a blogging client.

Concluding, there is a very slim chance that Microsoft Word will become a very well received blog-writing-client. It’s quite dysfunctional in this respect. But, if all you have is the ‘trusted’ MS Word, it’s better than nothing.