From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-03 13:11:25
I've been making adjustments to the serialization library to permit it to be
used as a DLL and I have a couple of questions.
As an example, I looked at the Jamfile for testing the filesystem. It
: [ run libs/filesystem/test/path_test.cpp
: : : <define>BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1
a) I presume the BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB is to suppress autolinking name generation
of the libraries. Is this correct?
b) the requirements included <lib> ... but not <dll>. Does this test Jamfile
EVER test the dll version of the filesystem library?
Now suppose the test is built with runtime-link/dll . I believe that would
indicate that the msvc dll version of the C++ libraries will be used and the
compiler will compile code accordingly. On the other hand the <lib> above
suggests that this test should be built with static linking. This raises a
couple of questions:
a) b) would it not make more sense for the filesystem test use the dll
version of the library when the dll version of the c++ library is being
used? By the same token I would expect that if the static version of the
c++ library is being used, then the static version of the filesystem library
would be used. Of course this isn't a requirement, but just a presumption
that the most likely scenario is that a user that wants to use C++ libraries
in dll from would likely want the same for other libraries.
c) ideally, if we had nothing but time I would like to be able to test all
combinations debug/release <runtime-link>static/dynamic, <filesystem
library>static/dynamic. What would be the most convenient way to do this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk