Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Boost cmake: why use Boost_NO_BOOST_CMAKE ON on macOs? #395

Closed
peter-d opened this issue Feb 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Boost cmake: why use Boost_NO_BOOST_CMAKE ON on macOs? #395

peter-d opened this issue Feb 3, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@peter-d
Copy link
Contributor

peter-d commented Feb 3, 2023

(triggered by an Olympia build issue riscv-software-src/riscv-perf-model#35)

I've noticed there's a bit of a non-standard way of finding boost for Sparta fro macOs:

set (Boost_NO_BOOST_CMAKE ON)

Which makes it need -DBoost_DIR=/opt/homebrew/Cellar/[email protected]/1.76.0_3/lib/cmake/Boost-1.76.0 on the command line to find the boost paths if they are not in a system default location.

But most other repos (like stf_lib, for example), to find boost with cmake, you define -DBOOST_ROOT=/opt/homebrew/Cellar/[email protected]/1.76.0_3

Removing that line, on my system at least, boost is still found correctly with the standard -DBOOST_ROOT=<path>, but then I am not using conda...

Is there a specific reason to keep this like that, or can the boost setup be made simpler (and more uniform)?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 3, 2023

Getting boost working with MacOS/cmake a few years back was a nightmare. Brew helps a bit, but there was something non-standard with how it was installed and how cmake interacted with it. Perhaps this is now moot since we've moved way past boost 1.65. I think I took the attitude -- it ain't broke, so don't fix.

Now it's back to broke and not standard. I'm ok with removing those constraints and trying again.

@peter-d
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-d commented Feb 3, 2023

Thanks for the quick feedback. It's still not obvious - I am, too, worried that while this might now work for me it's not necessarily good for everyone, but I only have this system to test on...

@peter-d
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-d commented Apr 28, 2023

We can close this now that #397 was merged a while ago.

@peter-d peter-d closed this as completed Apr 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant