Boost jamfile problem

Started by
2 comments, last by lincsimp 18 years, 8 months ago
hi I'm trying to use boost's build system. I've built jam.exe, but when I run it like this:"jam jamfile" it just spews out this: Jam cannot be run because, either: a. You didn't set BOOST_ROOT to indicate the root of your Boost installation. b. You are trying to use stock Jam but didn't indicate which compilation toolset to use. To do so, follow these simple instructions: - define one of the following environment variable, with the appropriate value according to this list: Variable Toolset Description BORLANDC Borland C++ BC++ install path VISUALC Microsoft Visual C++ VC++ install path VISUALC16 Microsoft Visual C++ 16 bit VC++ 16 bit install INTELC Intel C/C++ IC++ install path WATCOM Watcom C/C++ Watcom install path MINGW MinGW (gcc) MinGW install path LCC Win32-LCC LCC-Win32 install path - define the JAM_TOOLSET environment variable with the *name* of the toolset variable you want to use. e.g.: set VISUALC=C:\Visual6 set JAM_TOOLSET=VISUALC so I went into the jamfile and wrote this: set BOOST_ROOT = C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\boost_1_32_0 set VISUALC = C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003\Visual C++ .NET Standard 2003 - English set JAM_TOOLSET=VISUALC and tried again, but it gave me the same error. I don't know where to go to find what I'm doing wrong. Can anyone help? cheers
Advertisement
can anyone help?
Did you check the installation instructions on the Boost site?

a) Move bjam to the base directory of your Boost distribution (where you'll find index.htm, Jamfile, etc). That ought to eliminate the requirement for setting BOOST_BASE.

b) The toolset is vc-7_1, so you can do bjam -sTOOLS=vc-7_1 install

I just installed boost 1.33 (you seem to have 1.32, if you can spare the bandwidth, download 1.33) yesterday with both Dev-C++ and VC 7.1 and had no trouble whatsoever.
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." — Brian W. Kernighan
Thank you!! :)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement