Open SSE4 opened 5 years ago
I'm trying to cross compile boost for qnx but I am having some issues. The log is attached to the issue here. Is there any work being done to address this issue?
I'm closing this issue as boost recipe has change A LOT since this issue was open.
If this issue remains, do not hesitate to reopen it! 😄
@perseoGI how do I re-open? I don't see the button
I'll reopen for you. Please add more updated information!
moved from https://github.com/conan-community/community/issues/238, by @Johnnyxy
Hi, as Conan does support QNX Neutrino and its compiler QCC the conan-boost recipe could add support for QNX too. This thread should be the discussion for problems with the intercorporation between Conan, Boost and QNX.
I already have a fully working recipe locally (based on the official Conan-Boost-recipe) for QNX SDP 6.5 and QNX SDP 7.0 but to make those changes public I would like to hear opinions on how to approach certain problems to solve them in a more generic way.
obstacle - architecture
One obstacle is the architecture strings that Conan supplies and what QNX expects. For example:
The Conan docs define
armv8
asNow one could use this as concrete mapping from
armv8
toaarch64
but this still is missing thelittle endian
notation.As QNX 6.5 and 7.0 do not specify a different endianess setting except
little endian
(le) the mapping could be hardcoded to always postfix ale
-specifierarmv7le
. Now what tickles me is that the ARM architecture supports both endians asbi-endianess
. Thus this allows to run software with different endianess-specifications. This would make it difficult to map only to one endianess (e.g. armv7 -> armv7le) as maybe this could change in the future.I am not that expert for ARM programming. Maybe someone with more insights could answer the following: Based on ARM's
bi-endianess
:solution - architecture
settings.yml
. This would imply a change for all Boost-recipe users to provide the QNX architectures in theirsettings.yml
. Such a topic has been discussed in the Conan issue tracker (see here). Adding the architectures is possible but this would introduce confusion about the usage of e.g.armv8
until now. And changing the string was reasonable declined after all because of breaking changes....