Dmitry Arkhipov

1. > That's a straw man. I didn't propose to add -m32 for every architecture, Well, then what does this mean? > > We could change gcc.jam to add the...

#379 Oh, you meant, you wanted to add architecture deduction to toolset modules. I see.

The PR appears to have exposed CI build environments not having been properly set up for 32 bit builds.

Try running b2 with `--debug-configuration`, it should output if it sees that `-s ICU_PATH=`.

I just tried experimenting with the original (pdimov's) issue and originally I could not reproduce (I'm on Linux, though). *But* maybe the problem is that when you declare two configurations...

Making it optional was simpler to implement. I think, in order to make it non-optional the engine would have to provide a builtin-in rule with build platform's address model value.

There needs to be some default if the feature is non-optional. Using the host's value seems like a reasonable default. So the build system have to deduce that value somehow.

I don't get your point. You need some default for a non-optional feature. The default will be used when build request doesn't contain an explicit request for a particular value...

I still don't get your point. What would you make the default for address-model feature?

This issue is not about building Boost. It is in fact explicitly about not building Boost. So, not sure why you bring `boostcpp.jam` into it. > It's by design (unfortunately?)....